This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is almost entirely about a legal case, and only barely (if even that) about the marginally notable individual who brought the lawsuit in the first place. An article about the case, titled for the name of the case, would be more appropriate and more encyclopedic than this. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then show some real sources to demonstrate his notability properly — because the referencing here is garbage, consisting almost entirely of primary sources and blogs, and extremely little in the way of reliable media sourcing. And still, again, what I said was that it's pretty clear that the caseis notable; we often merge and redirect articles about individual people who are involved in notable events, but don't have really strong notability as individuals, to an article about the event instead of the individual. See, frex, how we handle Marc Hall and Henry Cuerrier; just like those articles, almost everything that's actually here is about the legal case rather than being about him. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of those sources is about the case, and every one of them fails to demonstrate Vulpe's notability as an individual — some of them don't even mention his name once, and even the ones that do mention his name mention it only once. Bearcat (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
