Talk:James W. Lewis

Citation Link doesn't work
The link for this citation doesn't work: Contreras, Russell (February 4, 2009). "FBI announces review of evidence in Tylenol deaths". The Associated Press. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_re_us/tylenol_poisonings.

It just leads to a yahoo search page. Alanasings (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger recommendation
This should be merged into 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders. Lewis isn't notable for anything other than his involvement in that matter. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Leave as is Recommendation
I strongly disagree with the recommendation to merge this page with the 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders page. This page should be left exactly where it is, and Lewis should be mentioned on the 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders page with a link to the  Lewis page. Lewis has not been found guilty of murder in the 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders, and we are not here to "solve the crime," but, rather, to create and maintain an online encyclopedia. If Lewis, "isn't notable for anything other than his involvement in that matter," it doesn't matter. He IS notable for his involvement in the matter, and that is more than enough to justify this article on the man himself. In addition to the letter to the Johnson & Johnson Company, Lewis has been found guilty and served time on several serious cases. This only adds to his notability, even if it makes him more, "notorious."

Based on the rationale that we combine pages for events with the people involved (even in small ways), I suppose we will combine Jim Jones with Jonestown, because, after all, Jim Jones isn't notable for anything other than his involvement in the Jonestown incident. I mean, yeah, there is a lot of content on the page, but, basically, nobody would find the Peoples Temple in San Francisco of any interest at all if not for the Jonestown incident. In fact, why not combine all three, 1. Peoples Temple in San Francisco with 2. Jonestown and 3. Jim Jones? 76.125.18.96 (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Leave as is Recommendation
I agree: leave as is. I don't understand the compulsive need to delete/merge pages. If the information is useful, well-organized, and factual with references, then leave it be. Energy would be better spent contributing content instead of fighting over deletions Repliedthemockturtle (talk). —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC).