Talk:Landmark Education litigation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Landmark Education litigation redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 30 days

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge with Landmark Worldwide[edit]

I see a clear consensus to merge this content. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

there is not enough content at the litigation article and this issue is important to understanding Landmark Worldwide. Also, the litigation article uses an outdated name for Landmark in the title Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the supposed merger. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Quite a few of the court cases have been blanked from this page, and although some may be reinstated with better sources, at this point it is sketchy. • Astynax ^talk 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Of the two cases shown here, one is already in the target article. The other case could likely be worked into the prose in a neutral manner. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I have no real objections to the move, but think that maybe the existing content could be supplemented and retitled to allow for a Criticism of Landmark Education article, which could discuss not only the lawsuits but the positive and negative academic and outsider views of the organization under its various names since it was first established. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At some point that might be an option if other material is added (and there is much material from reliable sources that should be added), but presently the article is very short and as I pointed out elsewhere, even if all the content of all the Landmark-related articles were merged without deleting anything, the resulting 17.7 kB article would still fall very far short of WP:LENGTH guidelines. • Astynax ^talk 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.