Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True v. USAA

True v. USAA

Argument for Delete: An article about a legal case which has barely begun, and about which there is no evidence any newspaper or journal has written, concerning a matter which itself does not appear to be notable or significant. Ordinarilly I'd be reluctant to nominate an article only a day old for AfD, but the submitter's other contributions (particularly those on Unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange) strongly suggest he intends to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to publicise his ongoing lawsuit. That's not a fit purpose to which Wikipedia should be put. Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argument to Keep: True v USAA was commenced (filed) 10 Feb 2004 (Docket # 04 L 79, St. Clare County, IL). Thus, this is hardly a new case. True is singularly the most challenging law suit and easily the most significant event presently bearing on USAA. It demands the immediate return of all unallocated surplus surplus. If Col True is granted class action status, and if Col True prevails, USAA will tautologicaly become insolvent and will be disolved by the Texas Department of Insurance.

True v USAA focuses on the fundamental issue that USAA's lacks any capital structure. USAA exists off of money "borrowed" and then perhaps not returned to the subscribers. This lawsuite demands that USAA repatriate money questionably deposited in the Arran Master Trust - and that this money be returned to the subscribers who own it.

(Author note as to argument to keep: I have absolutely no financial interest in how True v. USAA turns out.)

Critics: listen to this and listen carefully. " . . . and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne 1623. St. Paul's Cathedral, London. USAA's days are numbered. Look at all of you laid out below, as if you were tree huggers lying in front of a bull-dozer. You'all make a sad sight.

Delete as non-notable and advertising. I'm not opposed to significant legal cases being listed but this vulture should take ads out not use Wikipedia. Ifnord 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--ViolinGirl^♪ 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alr 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could get wikipedia in some legal hotwate imagine the headlines: Wikipedia used to promote lawsuit-Deathawk 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IANAL, but wouldn't this fall foul of Sub judice laws? Grutness...wha? 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 01:43Z
Deleteper nom. Evil Eye 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 02:22, January 4, 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Carnildo 08:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since WP:ISNOT a newspaper. Wait until the case is settled and see if it establishes any important legal precedent. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said earlier in nomination. Kaushik twin 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not asserted. -- MisterHand 15:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cyberevil 05:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Incognito 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rescendent 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuidditchBall (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom TheRingess 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]