The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Discounting Unscintillating's non sequitur, only one editor makes a reasonable argument for keeping, while everybody else thinks that this case is too low-profile to be notable. Sandstein 22:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not a notable court case, did not set any legal precedent and the case ended up getting settled out of court. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The case only received press coverage in New Jersey. The article talks about questions the case could have decided, but because the case was withdrawn it did not decide anything. Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More of rusf10's WP:OUTING breadcrumbs. Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment make absolutely no sense. Please stop trying to derail discussions.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:OUTING, "attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". Unscintillating (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read below, there never was an outing! The claim was just thrown out there as a distraction and you should have known better.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Trout Slap This is yet another staggeringly bad-faith nomination from an editor who has been persistently violating WP:HARASS / WP:WIKIHOUNDING since making this edit, where Rusf10 makes an explicit threat to target articles related to where I live, which has been followed by a pattern of bad faith AfD nominations, combined with a demented effort to violate WP:OUTING.
Rusf10 has nominated for deletion the following Teaneck-related articles as part of his campaign to get back at me: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker (Teaneck mayor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek (Teaneck mayor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr (Teaneck mayor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett (Teaneck mayor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter (Teaneck rabbi), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil (another Teaneck rabbi), and now this one, all targeted based on his earlier threat. In not one of these nominations did Rusf10 comply with WP:BEFORE. It's not the only target of Rusf10, but it certainly appears to be a rather consistent and unjustified target. The overwhelming majority of these deletion attempts failed, largely because of the extensive referencing already in the articles and the additional sources available elsewhere, many of which were added to the article as further evidence of notability. If allowed to continue, this abusive deletion attempt will similarly fail, based on the scope and breadth of sourcing in the article and available elsewhere.
The fact that the case is a New Jersey case or that it was settled is not a valid excuse for deletion; the standard is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Even if we were to take the nominator's claim that New Jersey sourcing is an argument, this source from the nationwide advocacy group Public Citizen would certainly be anything but local, and it's already in the article. Rusf10 has routinely ignored the obligations imposed by WP:BEFORE and similarly fails here. The most basic search on references to the case in Google turns up this source in Editor & Publisher, which explicitly discusses the case, as well as mentions of the case in sources such as this one from the American Bar Association.
I'm not sure what the basis is of the belligerent animus from Rusf10, but this abuse of process needs to stop immediately. Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address these outrageous allegations. You cannot claim WP:WIKIHOUNDING on an article you have not edited in 10 years. If I were stalking you as you have alleged in the past, I'd be going after stuff you've recently edited. Claiming hounding & harassment on a article you last edited 10 years ago is nothing short of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. As for WP:OUTING this is even more absurd, I have not provided any information about you that you yourself have not volunteered in the past. Your name (as if it isn't obvious already from you username, even you admit this "As you may have guessed from my user name") and the town you live in as written by you on your userpage: [[1]] There is NO outing!--Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Comment- The source citizen.org (mentioned above) is the group Public Citizen which represented Gallucci in this case. Since Public Citizen was involved with the case it is NOT an independent source and cannot be used to establish notability. All other sources are local.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED impact. Settled cases are usually not notable unless there is such lasting impact or there is professional or scholarly comment on the case's significance, and that is missing here. The WP:GNG notability rests essentially on one New Jersey Law Journal article speculating on what the case might mean, speculations that were mooted by the settlement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eggishorn, if you want to get this article deleted, please nominate it yourself later and withdraw here. Participating here as you are doing is support for WP:OUTING. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a serious accusation of bad faith, Unscintillating. What evidence do you have to support it?

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The following diff is evidence of WP:OUTING on this page, as requested, [2]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, for the last time, there is no outing! If you disagree, that please take it to WP:ANI. In fact, I strongly encourage you to do so. If you don't, then please refrain from making comments about it.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, That diff is far, far short of what WP:OUTING actually says. If you think otherwise, then you should by all means stop talking about it here and immediately report it in the appropriate venue. Otherwise, it just creates the impression that you are using a policy as a distraction to pursue inclusionism against notability and content policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily keep as per WP:DGFA. Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn case that was settled out of court. The coverage is routine; no societal impact or lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this does not appear to be a notable case, in the sense that it has had no lasting impact and there is no real indication that it has had an effect in setting meaningful precedents for subsequent cases. Reyk _YO! 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.