Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others

{{Not a ballot}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others}})

Very run-off-the-mill legal case. Employer was found partially guilty with most charges dismissed. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT as a {{tq|4. Routine kind of news event.}} For context, this used to be a BLP article about a non-notable person, which was just renamed in this case as a result of a separate AfD. Following that and removal of a lot of non-legal case puffery, it has become clear how routine the case is. Some people in the other AfD used WP:CRYSTALBALL with regards to why they claimed the BLP or legal case was notable, which swayed the closing admin in moving it to the case, but now sans the puffery, it's pretty clear that the case does not appear notable, other than routine coverage that any legal case, especially one in hot-button topics gets and with most of the case charges having been dismissed, it's unlikely it will set any kind of precedent, which until proven to do so is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Raladic (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Raladic (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would delete this article as covering a non-notable legal case, but it appears likely that Garden Court Chambers (the losing defendant in the case) is a notable law firm, and this decision is a noteworthy event with respect to the firm. I would therefore suggest creating an article on the firm, including the case as a section, and redirecting there. BD2412 T 21:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as non notable legal case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hideja (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• keep The previous discussion about the propose deletion of the article about Bailey resolved to either keep or rename, now that it has been renamed it is still a notable legal case and should be kept.Melissa Highton (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons, see previous discussion, closed today [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allison_Bailey] Sweet6970 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this is not an encyclopedically relevant case as it stands. Celebrity endorsements are trivia, not indications of notability. I will reiterate what I said at the Bailey AfD: any notable content should be merged to LGB Alliance. Simonm223 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• :{{yo|Simonm223}} What do you mean when you refer to ‘Celebrity endorsements’? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:Keep: I believe that the press coverage shown by the citations makes this case particularly notable, and not just run-of-the-mill. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::As a new editor you may not be familiar with our policies, but press coverage of routine events does not confer notability as cited in the nomination per WP:EVENTCRITERIA: {{tq|Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.}} Raladic (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Thank you for pointing me to this FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::::{{yo|FLIPPINGOUT}}This case is not a routine kind of news event. It was one of the first legal cases to use the precedent set by the case of Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe and it involves the well-known organisation, Stonewall (charity). Leave has been granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal, so whichever way the appeal goes, it will set a precedent. It is the opposite of a routine case. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::That just shows that the Forstater case may have notability, please note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so it doesn't go the other way around. This is a very common fallacy at AfD. As for Stonewall, all claims against them were dismissed, so a "yup, they didn't do anything wrong" is definitely not news/notability. As for your claim about some additional court of appeal, beyond the one that already dismissed the case, there is absolutely no reliable coverage on such a thing existing, other than editors claiming of its existence, so again, please keep the WP:CRYSTAL out of AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::'{{tq|Some additional court of appeal}}' is the Court of Appeal (England and Wales). The previous appeal was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::With no reliable sources supporting this, so again, please keep the WP:CRYSTAL out of this AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::[https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/getDetail.do?case_id=CA-2024-001933 Saying that it is going to the Court of Appeal] isn't WP:CRYSTAL. We have a WP:RS that it is, it is WP:PRIMARY, but absolutely valid to use for straightforward statement that the {{tq | Case has become an Appeal}} and was {{tq | Allowed on 25-Nov-2024}} and that its status is {{tq | Hear By 01-Dec-2025}}. Void if removed (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Legal cases get appealed all the time, that doesn't make them notable. Since zero RS have talked about it, the current presumption is it's not worth their time as just another run-off-the-mill appeal. Which means right now giving it any kind of notability is the definition of crystalball. Raladic (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Insisting that a legal case is a "routine event" does not make it so. Wikipedia has long-standing definitions for what types of events are normally considered routine. According to WP:ROUTINE, routine events include {{tq|announcements, scheduled events, wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences}}. According to WP:NOTROUTINE, routine events include {{tq| weddings, funerals, sports scores, and other "and finally..." stories}} According to WP:EVENTCRIT, routine events include {{tq|most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena}}. None of this applies to a legal case that received in-depth coverage in all of the UK's most reliable newspapers. Astaire (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::::WP:NOTNEWS - our notability standard is not whether the national media infrastructure most regularly criticized for over-playing anti-trans narratives made a temporary cause celebre of a case that did not establish any new precedent or do much of anything at all for any of the parties involved. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for citing WP:NOTNEWS, which provides yet another definition of "routine" to illustrate my point: routine news is {{tq|coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities}}, none of which applies here. Your opinion that the UK press covered this case "too much" is just that - an opinion that goes against WP:RSP consensus. Astaire (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::Are you proposing that literally any court case that gets media coverage requires a page on Wikipedia? Because that is effectively what your comments imply. And I'd say that lots of people would prefer to avoid Wikipedia being a compendium of endless pointless civil suits. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:Speedy keep. Why are you retrying this mere hours after the previous discussion closed? The closer found consensus to keep and rename the article and called it a {{tq|notable legal case}}, so you are deliberately ignoring consensus from the last discussion. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and try again in WP:6MONTHS. Astaire (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, as closer of the previous discussion. This is not a routine legal case, but has precedential importance in that it seems to be the first case in English employment law that determined that "gender-critical" or "anti-trans" views are a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and that therefore someone can't be fired for expressing such views.

:The importance of the case in this respect is highlighted e.g. by the following selection from among the numerous articles and blog posts about the case by British law firms and legal professionals: [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/allison-baileys-discrimination-claim/5113404.article], [https://blogs.dlapiper.com/beaware/bailey-v-stonewall-equality-ltd-and-garden-court-chambers-2020/], [https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2022/08/03/discrimination-and-freedom-of-belief-in-the-sex-and-gender-debate/] [https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/media/Bailey-v-Stonewall-Garden-Court-Chambers-gender-critical-belief], [https://www.spencershaw.co.uk/news/bailey-v-stonewall-what-is-inducement-to-discriminate/].

:Moreover, the case attracted in-depth coverage by mainstream media, making it notable, e.g. by the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62294030 BBC] and [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/19/allison-bailey-barrister-case-wider-debate-transgender-rights The Guardian], which notes: "With its own dedicated (unofficial) Twitter account and people following proceedings daily live via video, the unlawful discrimination case brought by barrister Allison Bailey against her chambers Garden Court and Stonewall has seen levels of engagement rare for an employment tribunal." This makes it clear that this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case. Sandstein 09:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::Quick note, this case was not the one that determined that gender critical was a philosophical belief (not a protected characteristic), that was the Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe case.

::Lots of people get confused by the fact that whilst gender critical was found to be a philosophical belief that is protected under the equality act, it's protected in the same way supporting a football club would be. It is not protected in the same way as the 9 protected characteristics set out in the act. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::Inf: The case which established the precedent that ‘gender-critical’ philosophical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 was actually Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe. The Bailey case is legally significant firstly because it is one of the first cases where this precedent was applied – the grounds for the claim were amended to include the philosophical belief during the course of the claim, after the precedent was established by Forstater. Secondly, the Bailey case is legally significant because it includes a claim under section 111 of the Equality Act that a party caused or induced another to discriminate: the claim is that Stonewall caused or induced Garden Court Chambers to discriminate against Bailey. Bailey lost this claim in the employment tribunal, and at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. So currently her case is a precedent about what constitutes causing/inducing to discriminate. She has announced on her website that she has obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. There is no reason to doubt her statement, but it has not been included in the article because it has not yet been reported by secondary sources. When the case is heard by the Court of Appeal, that judgment will become a precedent, whether she wins or loses. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I don’t understand {{u|LunaHasArrived}}’s comment about a football club. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::::The point I was trying to make (although rather badly on further reading) was that gender critical beliefs aren't one of the 9 protected characteristics, just that they're covered by one of them and that lots of stuff is covered by philosophical belief (the ehrc's website uses the example of someone trying reducing their effect on climate change.)

::::I have to say your insistence on the fact that the court of appeals case will be legally notable and that the original case was legally significant (for it's use of the Forstater judgement) do not seem to be backed up by secondary rs and seem to be your own opinion. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::It sounds like your close of the previous AfD about the BLP and your reasoning for the move was thus made in error as the case did not set precedent as was explained above by Luna now. In light of all this. Do you want to vacate your AfD ruling that appears to have been made in error? Raladic (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::No, because my previous AfD closure was based on the consensus view in that discussion, and not, as here, on the basis of my own since-formed views about the importance of the case. Moreover, irrespective of its precedential value (which seems to be not substantially contested), for the reasons explained above, it is certainly notable because of the breadth and depth of coverage it has received in reliable sources. Sandstein 17:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::::While there has been breadth of coverage in the UK media (and effectively just the UK media) there's no indication of depth I've seen. It's all puffery. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:* Speedy Keep per prior discussion. Nothing has changed in the last 24 hours. Void if removed (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::: Adding to my comment - since this was listed, there has been further coverage of the notability of the court of appeal hearing. See [https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/employment/ca-to-consider-whether-stonewall-induced-chambers-discrimination here] and [https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/doyle-clayton-client-granted-permission-by-the-court-of-appeal/ here].

::: {{quote frame | "In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal."}}

:::So yes, something has changed, we now have secondary coverage that this will set legal precedent in an area of law with no previous authority, and that points to an even stronger reason to keep.Void if removed (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:*Keep. I understand the frustration here. In any sane world this would indeed be a very run-of-the-mill case but this is not a sane world. This has been hyped up into a cause célèbre and that is one of the things that makes it notable. We need to cover it, and the media circus around it, taking care not to get any of the clown paint on ourselves by buying into the hype. That's not easy to do. Sober coverage of this is hard to come by. Even nominally Reliable Sources write about this with little regard for accuracy (and that's putting it politely). It doesn't help that Bailey herself simultaneously tries to spin this as a great victory from which she emerged vindicated and also as an outrageous injustice that must be repeatedly appealed before she gets justice. It's never going to be an easy article. We can only do our best. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I'm very confused about the Keep votes above. None of them seem to actually be arguing from a notability policy standpoint. In fact, many of them seem to even acknowledge that this case doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NEVENTS, which is a higher bar than just having reliable sources existing or a "media circus" happening. Legal case notability requires that some sort of unique and significant result came about from the case in order for it to meet requirements. And, as has already been noted above, Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe already did that for this subject matter, rather specifically. And nothing additionally has been presented regarding this case that raises it above routine ongoing cases from that precedent. Silverseren^C 02:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:*{{ping|Silver seren}} According to [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/allison-baileys-discrimination-claim/5113404.article Manso De Zuniga], the case does have precedential value: "The judgment extends the legal protection afforded to gender critical beliefs established in Maya Forstater v CGD. In addition to a belief in the biological immutability of sex, a belief that ‘gender theory as proselytised by [Stonewall] is severely detrimental to women [and]… to lesbians’ is also protected. The ET determined that Bailey’s belief in ‘the pernicious effect of Stonewall’s campaign promoting gender self-identity’ was genuine and passed the test for protected beliefs set out in Grainger v Nicholson." Similarly, [https://blogs.dlapiper.com/beaware/bailey-v-stonewall-equality-ltd-and-garden-court-chambers-2020/ DLA Piper] noted: "The Tribunal decision goes further than the decision in Forstater as to the nature of the gender critical views which are protected under the EqA, in the conclusion that views about Stonewall’s campaigning on gender self-identity could be part of this protected belief. It also demonstrates that organisations adopting Stonewall’s stance on gender identity may not be a neutral act and could open up potential liability under the EqA." Sandstein 09:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

::A lot of these Keep votes have nothing to do with notability policy and are more like newsroom arguments for covering the case. My keep down below links some coverage that goes beyond simple news reporting. What do you mean about case notability? I couldn’t find that guideline. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Notifications

In accordance with advice obtained from {{u|Sandstein}}, I am notifying editors who participated in the previous AfD discussion on Allison Bailey, but have not commented here, of this current AfD discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Coverage goes beyond routine reporting. See pieces [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/04/26/stonewall-doesnt-represent-woman-like-allison-bailey/ here], [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/19/allison-bailey-barrister-case-wider-debate-transgender-rights here], and [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/allison-bailey-and-the-trouble-with-stonewall/ here]. Notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• :Ah yes, the three papers that report breathlessly in support of every single piece of anti-trans ephemera. Those sources represent a walled garden and should not be used to determine what anti-trans stuff is notable. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:::The trouble is that they have successfully made it notable by building up baseless hype around it. It shouldn't be notable, but it is. Yes, I get that this is absolutely infuriating, and extremely dangerous, but that is the state of utter depravity in the UK press and we are stuck with it, for the time being at least. What would help here is if we could rely more on sources that cover this from outside of the British anti-trans bullshit machine, much of which we regard as RS although it is anything but reliable. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This is an ongoing case now at the Court of Appeal and is a significant development in the law relating to the prohibition on instructing, causing or inducing discrimination prohibited under s.111 of the Equality Act 2010 - something, it appears, does not seem to have been the subject of previous authority. Additionally, it is rare that permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted and then only where there is a real prospect of success, or where there is some other compelling reason for the case to be heard. This makes the whole case and article notable and far from being a routine case. The fact that it involves Stonewall adds to the reasons it must be kept. Zeno27 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep no BLP concerns; the sourcing seems sufficient. The arguments to discount all coverage are not convincing. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.