Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep in some form. Which form that should be can be a matter for discussion elsewhere. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This seems like misapplication of WP:ATTREQ and unnecessary ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I presume whatever BLP issues lead to the 2007 mess here are now obsolete given that Crystal Mangum has had a standalone article since 2011, so the correct action would be to restore the deleted history at this title and merge it with the article, leaving the placeholder now here deleted. If I'm mistaken, then I don't see the problem with this method, so keep * Pppery * it has begun... 02:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - The revision history of a deleted page is always restorable by an admin, there is never a reason to copy and paste the text of a revision history in order to "save" it. If there's an attribution problem, this isn't the solution to it.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Scottywong. This is a copy of the portion of the text that makes up the history page. It does not itself contain relevant history. Uncertain. The IP editor commenting below may be right. The history was deleted for BLP reasons and the present Crystal Mangum article really does not include this history; some of the former article's content "may have been incorporated" into another article. Scottywong, do you have any further thoughts on this? Most likely, there actually aren't any extant BLP concerns with respect to the deleted history, now that the subject has ben deemed suitable for inclusion (since 2011 at least).—Alalch E. 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically do what Pppery suggested above. —Alalch E. 16:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Retain attribution in some form the license requires attribution be preserved; there's more than one way to do that. This is following the practice listed at Merge and delete. For legal reasons at a minimum the authorship must be preserved somewhere. We could do this by substing onto a collapsed section of the primary talkpage, pushing it straight to an archive or just undeleting the original history as suggested by Pppery, but we must adhere to the terms of the license. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.