Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Megaupload raid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Megaupload raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violates WP:NOT specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Ryan Vesey 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. The List of Megaupload raid is useful. It will give information for those who really are interested about Megaupload case. Also, the text is in public domain, because it is work of United States federal court system. As a work of US Gov, it's in public domain. I don't see any reason to say it is not useful, if it is. Article tells just about 5 precents of it, if even it. --Einottaja (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the text is in the public domain, you might be able to upload it to Wikisource then include {{Wikisource}} on Megaupload legal case. Ryan Vesey 14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Einottaja (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the text is in the public domain, you might be able to upload it to Wikisource then include {{Wikisource}} on Megaupload legal case. Ryan Vesey 14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. The List of Megaupload raid is useful. It will give information for those who really are interested about Megaupload case. Also, the text is in public domain, because it is work of United States federal court system. As a work of US Gov, it's in public domain. I don't see any reason to say it is not useful, if it is. Article tells just about 5 precents of it, if even it. --Einottaja (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 01:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced list whose significance is unclear. Even if the article were kept, it would need to be moved to a more grammatical title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An indiscriminate list without any claim to notability or any sources. JIP | Talk 05:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.