Deletion of Coons v. Hallman

Comment: The citations of Goldwater Institute included a quote from one of our litigators (which was deleted in a recent edit) and a timeline entry about an action that the City of Tempe took (which is still there). Unless the entry in the timeline is biased – and it is simply a statement of a legal action, so I do not see how it could be – it is within WP’s policies to cite oneself. After this most recent edit, 2/3 of the references are from outside sources. WP allows citing oneself “within reason,” and I believe that this is within that policy line. A specific suggestion of how and where to improve would be welcome. Additionally, editing an article for a legal case of which you/your organization is a party is not an ''inherent'' conflict of interest, as dictated by |COI, and is simply '''strongly discouraged.''' As such, it does not seem that the article is inherently in violation of |COI and further proof of COI is needed. A suggestion of how and where to improve would be welcome. I can understand why there would be suspicions of |COI and |POV, but, given the specifics of WP’s policies, it seems that further evidence is needed to support this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:COI||WP:COI||WP:NPOV)

Comment: the general rules |here in the past, and at |WikiProject Law, are that most lawsuits are not notable until they become appealed; certain exceptions include those involving |where both plaintiff and defendant are notable litigants.  I can't see how this will have any Precedent|precedential value even if it gets to the Arizona Court of Appeals
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES||WP:LAW||WP:BLP)

Comment: Per #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)