Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ney v. Landmark Education Corp.
Agree that notability is borderline, but notable enough to merit a Washington Post article at the time.  I don't agree that sourcing is weak.  Everything significant in article can be found in the cited washington post or the Fourth Circuit opinions. I don't understand how this article purportedly runs afoul of   The misbehaviour of one of the editors who created strikes me as irrelevant to this discussion. Maybe the proposer will explain.  The inaccuracies referenced above should be corrected, but don't relate to the living person.  If an editor is concerned that a source is being misrepresented, he should look at the source, not have the article deleted.  (Not hard to do, it's in wikisources. I do agree that the case did not establish any significant legal precedent, and certainly doesn't meet the criteria in the  guideline, but many cases that don't fall within that guideline are notable for other reasons, as this one seems to be, and have articles here.  Guideline should probably be amended
— User:Federalist51, 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BLP||WP:CASES (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)