Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek Cypriots v. TRNC and HSBC Bank USA

Greek Cypriots v. TRNC and HSBC Bank USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is case no. 09-1967 in DC district court and appears to have been decided. However, there was no newspaper coverage, or other coverage, of the case. I think the information we have is too scanty for an article on this and the press releases quoted should be merged into the article Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States. Shii (tock) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I know the case. It's not encyclopedic. Has got few references. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is 14 few? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per faulty rationale of the nominator. However, there was no newspaper coverage, or other coverage, of the case.. The article has three newspaper references, not none, as the nominator claims. Moreover the newspaper coverage spans 2009, 2010, 2011; this is persistent, longterm press coverage for this legal case. In addition the article is already long and detailed and can be further expanded making any merge idea impractical and unnecessary. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it. The article lists the official name of the case as "Greek Cypriots, et al. v. TRNC and HSBC Bank USA". But it's not, as Justia can tell you. Why are the sources consistently wrong? Shii (tock) 08:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the sources are using descriptive names and not the legal name of the case. But I don't think this is a valid reason to delete the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It just makes me question the unsourced material in the article, such as the name and current status of the case. If the article passes AFD I will probably rename it to "Greek Cypriots v. Turkish Cypriots". Shii (tock) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There may be unsourced material in the article but there is a lot of sourced material that has not yet been added from the reliable sources. As for renaming the article Greek Cypriots v. Turkish Cypriots this completely misses the point that the TRNC, HSBC and even Turkey are all named in the class-action suit, according to the reliable sources, as the defendants in the case, and no source is talking about the defendants being the Turkish Cypriots so your suggestion fails recognisability and is original research. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The title as it stands is also original research and apparently made up by the article's authors. Shii (tock) 20:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree. Perhaps we can change it to something like "Greek Cypriot class action suit against Turkey and TRNC". I have seen some descriptions in the sources closely matching this description and will put them forward as quotes a bit later. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • The name of the case is: Toumazou et al v. Republic of Turkey et al Case number 1:2009cv01967. I just added the reference from Justia.com. The article now has 14 references. Can we close this AfD then? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Now I added two more references for a total of five. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nice amount of coverage from multiple different references. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. Article should be moved to the real name of the case. James500 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you James500. I'll move the article as soon as this AfD ends. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This reads like a news-story, not a encyclopedic entry. Not enough reliable references, too. Biased. Pompei34992 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)— Pompei34992 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The rationales for deletion are inadequate because they are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Whether the title is correct is not relevant under WP:RUBBISH ("Some articles have well-written text and references. But the one thing poor about them is the title. There is a simple solution to this: rename it!"). There are some reliable sources like Courthouse News, ABC News, and the Telegraph; the objection is to their quantity. But the fact that there only a few reliable sources rather than a bevy is insufficient for deletion under WP:RUBBISH and also misunderstands notability per WP:MUST and WP:NRV ("If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate" and "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."). So I think there's no reason to delete. AgnosticAphid talk 00:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thank you AgnosticAphid for your well-thought out and documented comments but there are many more RS than the ones you just mentioned: Hurriyet, Associated Press, The Weekly Standard, Cyprus Mail (quote: "is the top-selling English-language daily newspaper published in Cyprus."), The National Herald, Cyprus News Agency and more. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Courthouse News is not actually RS, and we are not supposed to cite legal documents on Wikipedia. But I see the argument for keeping the article. Shii (tock) 02:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You say that quite definitively, but I don't think it's clear that courthouse news is not an RS. I searched the RSN archives, and all I could find was a conclusion in one instance that they aren't reliable for criminal cases since the "about us" page says they focus on civil litigation. This is a civil case. I don't see what's so unreliable about it. It gets quoted in venerable publications from time to time and an awful lot of my lawyer friends read it. They exercise editorial control over their posts. Plus, they attach documents to the end of almost all of their articles, so everything they say is verifiable. It's also not super relevant if this one source is reliable. Still, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. AgnosticAphid talk 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Agnosticaphid. @Shii:: You also say: and we are not supposed to cite legal documents on Wikipedia How is that? Many law articles I have seen all cite legal documents. In fact it sounds completely counter-intuitive not to cite legal documents in a legal case. Can you point to the relevant policy which says that we are not supposed to cite legal documents on Wikipedia? Also another point: This case, as Bearian observed below, has got international coverage from many reliable sources. Many law articles do not come close to having near the number of its reliable sources. Yet, this case with such superior coverage by RS is still up for deletion. Why? I think we have reached the point of speedy keep. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

using the legal document is a problem because the legal documents are WP:PRIMARY sources. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but still. AgnosticAphid talk 21:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know about WP:PRIMARY. But the use of primary sources is not prohibited on Wikipedia. And I am not making any claims using the primary sources. I just used them to establish in good faith that the case is documented and it exists. I also use them to establish its official legal name. This use of primary sources is not prohibited. And primary sources are used widely in legal articles not because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but because primary sources are very useful in establishing official details of the cases. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as it appears now, it passes per WP:HEY. The average district court cases does not get this kind of international coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2014 (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.