Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)/Research


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep ^ demon [omg plz] 07:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)/Research
Created while the article was in limbo over a year ago, this temporary page is no longer in use. Unfortunately, I don't believe this page is eligible for prodding. --Maxamegalon2000 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and add a link from the main talk page so that people can find it. As Amarkov has written in the past, just because people aren't using a page doesn't mean they should continue not to use it. Placeholder account 04:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful material for other contributors. I've added a note at the top of the main talk page as `Placeholder account' has suggested. John Vandenberg 09:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I should have explained the situation better.  In February and March 2006, the main article was put under WP:OFFICE scrutiny after a complaint by Thompson, and one of the community responses was to create this page, containing the text of the original article and its subarticles.  When the article was reopened, a higher standard of sourcing was enforced, and the article is now significantly improved.  Much of the content in the original article(s), which this page contains, is either unsourced or poorly sourced.  Many of the sources are gaming sites, which were ruled inappropriate for the article, or LiveJournal posts, which are clearly not reputable sources and were largely deleted when the accounts in question were banned.  As a result, this page does not resemble the current article in terms of content or quality, and there really is nothing of use in it. --Maxamegalon2000 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because the article is historic is not really a reason to delete this. We should still keep it on file. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no longer in use. Keeping it as "historic" misses the point; it's simply a copy of a previous version of the article, and the right place to look for that is (surprise!) the article history. And because it's a cut-and-paste, it fails to properly credit its authors, for those who care about compliance with the GFDL. --Michael Snow 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that. The old version does contain much of the content on this research page, but I would suggest that only about 50% was ever incorporated into the article.  Also, I did a quick cross check against the current article, and there were a few notable sections missing from the current article, such as "Amazon.com threatened with legal action" - I recall this particular event as it made it to slashdot.  I wasnt able to find any traditional reliable sources for this, only..  and the "bookstorming" was mentioned in the case 07-20693-civ-altonaga (Take Two vs Thompson).  So, there is useful material in here that is not in the history, and I still think that the current editors should be given a chance to make use of it.  However it is borderline material; could we conclude this with a decision to delete it in two months without another Mfd? John Vandenberg 23:50, 6 June 2007 (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.