Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious Technology Center vs. Netcom

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 7 delete and 5 transwiki. No votes suggested that this article should remain in the Wikipedia space. I am going to exercise my discretion and add it to the transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Religious Technology Center vs. Netcom
Was about to transwiki to Wikisource then wondered whether or not this sort of thing would be welcome there. It's certainly unencyclopedic. -- Francs2000 | Talk 03:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no transwiki. Appears to be non-notable court case. Neutralitytalk 03:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. User is obviously promoting an agenda. – flamuraiTM 03:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonencyclopedic. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 04:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd agree. Transwiki isn't a good idea if it's not notable. If every run of the mill case went into WikiSource, it'd get bigger than Wiki can handle. --Woohookitty 06:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. The case was so notable I've heard about it. It was over Usenet publication of the controversially secret "Advanced Technology" of Scientology; Religious Technology Center is the corporate power-behind-the-throne that owns Scientology doctrine by its ownership of the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Besides transwiking, add a mention at Scientology and the legal system. Samaritan 12:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Trans. --JuntungWu 14:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. But this case is fairly notable, and there should be an article about it, or at least discussion under Scientology, if there isn't already.  --BM 20:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, not notable enough, POV un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . GRider\talk 19:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Change of vote to transwiki, agree with David Gerard. GRider\talk 18:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. This is an important and historical case - one of the first serious legal tests of an ISP's liability for material transmitted over their network (in 1995, before the DMCA was passed). But just putting up the decision isn't an article. (I speak here as a subject matter expert.) - David Gerard 16:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I already commented about this on that article's talk page. This text really doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards, and frankly, I can't see any use for it here. Maybe it could be tranferred to some other sister project, but I don't know about those. The way it is, I don't think it should be kept here. In that case, it would need some hard work done on it.--Kaonashi 04:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or delete: there's nothing here but what a copy of a court document. However, contra above comments, this was a notable case.  It involved the Church of Scientology trying to sue someone for posting their secret religious texts online, as a violation of "trade secrets" and as a copyright infringement.  This was pre-DMCA, so the court had to work out its own concept of how much Netcom, the poster's ISP, should be liable for the conduct of one of its users&mdash;the case is notable for anyone wanting to study the Church, IP law, or the development of internet law in the 1990s.  It should have its own article eventually.  This obviously just isn't it.  Postdlf 22:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And I just realized that some of the above comments already pointed this out... : )  Postdlf 22:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.