Talk:Roy L. Pearson, Jr./Archive 1

Deletion
PLEASE NOTE BEFORE POSTING HERE: all further discussion on the possible deletion of this article should be taken to the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. -- MisterHand 18:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion
This article should be deleted. The entire case is a form of self-aggrandizement and the creation of a wikipedia article just caters to this man's ego. Until the ruling, this case has no more precedent than any other civil case. Pending civil cases do no belong on wikipedia; this is a transient news story, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.73.237 (talk • contribs)

"keep it. this is a great example of our abuse of the legal system. a judge is supposed to be just, not greedy." - me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.150.252 (talk • contribs)

He's become a public figure and the story has been picked up by media around the world. If people want more information about such a well-known case, they should be able to come here and read it. I also disagree that this article simply caters to the man's ego. He gets off on having things done his way; he's essentially a power freak. This article gives people the truth about him. 128.143.117.162 18:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This story made the world-wide media, but what makes it even more worthy is that it documents an egregious abuse of the legal system by a member of the judiciary. If anything, it deserves a "developing story" tag and not a speedy delete. Skurczysyn 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Strong keep." I hate every one of you deletion-mongers. If it doesn't interest you, if you don't think something is "notable," go elsewhere. Don't ruin it for people who would like their encyclopedias to be encyclopedic. Jerks.

^^ Agreed. Enough of the kittens and sunshine view of how we should define Wiki-worthy material. Most people seem to think this is a topic important enough to have an article. What happened to "consensus," hmm?

Stong Keep I came here because I wanted to know more about this person. I expected that Wikipedia would have an article which summarized his status encycopedically. I am astonished that anyone would consider this article for deletion. Please don't delete it. In fact I would expect that it will grow with time and become a resource for people researching the topic of judicial impropriety, and the legal crisis.

Stong Keep I also came here to learn about this individual. GarlicBreath 16:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove I believe that it should be removed. However, the small section on his background should be kept. The article has next to no information on his background and almost all of it is about the court case and is in favor of him. The coverage of the case has definite undue weight. Not to mention that wikipedia is not CNN. A blurb should mention that there is a a case where he is suing a dry cleaner for $65 million; and leave it at that. After the ruling has been found, then information about this can be written about. Chris01720 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is an interesting and important article as it pertains to the lawsuit. Outside of that, this is an uninteresting and unimportant person. Therefore the article should be heavily weighted towards this ongoing suit and discussion of abuse of the legal system. Other information about this man should only be included as is necessary to discuss the lawsuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.68.1 (talk • contribs)