Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Life Lawsuit : Bragg v. Linden, et al


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.  

The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Life Lawsuit : Bragg v. Linden, et al
Article was prod'd and prod removed and restored (a common misapprehension). To my mind this is an article which would now be dealt with by db-spam speedy deletion as it was created specifically to generate interest by User:Msbjustice (talk • contribs) [i.e. M. Bragg]. As the case has not yet come to court and lacks much third-party reporting, I fail to see any encyclopedic value in keeping it (which means that Ignore all rules applies here). Relevant alphabet soup includes WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not a soapbox; WP:AUTO - writing about yourself is a Bad Thing; and WP:NPOV - the other party in the case is not going to have their say here (but perhaps this might be a new sideline for MyWikiBiz ...). So, delete, speedy delete, or what ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is also a duplicate (now a redirect, but Msbjustice might change that) at Virtual Land Dispute in Second Life which I would like to include here Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regular old delete per nom. Not really "blatant spam", but a lot of unencyclopedic puffery nonetheless. Grand  master  ka  23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I actually had orginally tagged this article for a speedy deletion. Wikipediarul e s2221 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems little more than a press release, but I'm fine with a good old fashioned delete. This might be worth an article when it is published in the National Reporter System.-- danntm T C 00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep At first it looks like merely crystal-ballism and puffery. However the case asserts its importance in that it claims to have an effect on hundreds of thousands of users and that it is "first of its kind".  These claims should be deleted (and neither is at the moment verified) before I'd be willing to change to delete. JASpencer 08:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity and soapboxing. A case does not set a precedent unless it is cited. So far there isn't even a judgement to cite. Gazpacho 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The article may improve as information rolls in. Having an inerest here, I want to know what the law becomes and is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.149.38 (talk • contribs) 11:58 (UTC) 11 October 2006
 * You can follow it in the news. Gazpacho 02:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. WP:OR violation if nothing else. --Aaron 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.