The following is the VfD discussion. Note there are still some live issues.
Note: I have added this again because it the votes are too confusing and I have no idea whether there is a consensus to delete it or not. Will those of you who made "tenative" votes or ones qualified by some set of conditions please make up your minds. UninvitedCompany 21:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
- Even with the ambiguous votes counted as deletes, it doesn't look like there is a clear consensus. I would have removed and kept it. -- Ben Brockert 21:48, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, since it's been re-listed, I'll take this opportunity to note that so far nobody has found any evidence that this situation actually went to court. The only evidence of the dispute consists of bad-tempered newsgroup posts, none of which mention a lawsuit. This article is similar to the now-defunct
Simpson Family Trust -- something from a plausible alternate universe.
Delete it as unverified.Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Delete.Agree with Wile. E.. Good call UninvitedCompany. Andrewa 07:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)- Delete. -- EuroTom 23:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- I have put in a request to verify the existence of this case. I'm told the search could take 6-8 weeks to complete because it might require a paper-search. If this is a real case, the decision about whether this case was notable/encyclopedic still remains a judgement call. I still vote keep but request that this discussion be archived until the response has a chance to come back.
Rossami 13:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Second the motion to shelve the discussion til the response comes back. Thanks for taking the extra trouble to verify it.
Wile E. Heresiarch 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- (Change of vote) Agree. Andrewa 05:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Second the motion to shelve the discussion til the response comes back. Thanks for taking the extra trouble to verify it.
Wile E. Heresiarch 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If this is really such an important case, it should have left some dust somewhere on the Internet (or Usenet). An Internet libel case that ends up being mentioned rarely on the internet itself is surely of little influence! JFW | T@lk 11:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems like a non-event, and if it does turn out to be significant for Internet history, it can always be written up again. Tonusperegrinus 15:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Snowspinner 22:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
An episode in the life of David Simpson, whose vanity page was recently deleted. Google returns no web hits (other than WP) for Simpson Savoie, and in newsgroups it turns up a few, including this one [1] which shows that the "landmark case" involved members of role-playing games clubs who weren't being very nice to each other. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - interesting but not a "landmark case" - Tεx τ urε 15:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - regardless of the nature of the dispute, it was an early ruling about the natire of the Internet, and is of historical interest on those grounds. Furthermore, if every article that were interesting but somewhat unimportant were to come up on VfD, VfD would rapidly become the largest page on Wikipedia. Part of Wikipedia's value is that it actually has listings on some of these things - if we were to delete this case, then someone researching it on the Internet would have no resources. As it stands, they have one, and that's a good thing. Snowspinner 15:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Tentative keep, but there should be verification that it was indeed a 'landmark case': case background, any external links, etc. Alcarillo 16:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep if it's real; seems significant enough, even if not a "landmark case". Everyking 16:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless verified. Possible fiction - not listed in
cases at
CyberLibel (a Canadian lawyer's site). --
Zigger 19:15, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
- Delete. No reference given. Dubious source. Case not mentioned on relevant websites. No voters have claimed that the case ever existed. Article confuses slander and libel (deliberately?), making it even less likely. -- Zigger 22:03, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't want this included in your encyclopedia -David Simpson
- I'm uncertain whether you have a meaningful say in that. At least, on the grounds of personal preference. Why don't you want it included? Snowspinner 20:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Has made no impact on the British media. I searched on a few sources (Two broadsheet, ie serious newspapers, and the BBC amongst others) - if it were a 'landmark' case about internet law it would have deserved a mention. I also feel that if you're resorting to newsgroup links that suggests something's lacking. -- bodnotbod 20:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks context to support the "landmark" claim.
JFW | T@lk 20:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC) - I want this deleted because this case was a very emotional one for me. I don't really want to see it debated in your little forum. Also Savoie passed away a few years ago, so the case isn't that important.
- I've voted for deletion because I can't see that it warrants inclusion. I'm sympathetic to your feelings. I would recommend keeping a cool head as you argue this out. Try not to resort to belittling the project as this will not help your cause. I'd also like to suggest to everyone else that we handle this sensitively. -- bodnotbod 20:48, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- While I understand that this is a touchy subject for you, I don't think that's grounds for deletion. If it happened, it's a matter of history, and it's fair for an encyclopedia to cover it. Most of the participants of the American Civil War have also died, but that does not make that article any less relevent or important. Snowspinner 21:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. While not "landmark" seems notable. I'll remove "landmark" from the article.--
Samuel J. Howard 21:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you have a source not listed in this discussion so far, I'm sure we'd like to see it. --
bodnotbod 21:35, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't have other sources, there are some more things on Savoie and Simpson lying around the internet, but nothing illuminating. But, reading the usenet post cited this seems to be an interesting part of the "D&D is Satanic" debates in North America. Also, I find it notable because having been on USENET in the past I've seen lots of "I'll Sue You" debates. One that went to court seems notable, I don't know of any others. If there are better controling precedents I'd prefer those listed, but it seems reasonable to keep this one until those are tracked down.-- Samuel J. Howard 21:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you have a source not listed in this discussion so far, I'm sure we'd like to see it. --
bodnotbod 21:35, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm uneasy. Looking at the history the article, at one point, said Judge Steinberg ruled that since the material in question could exist as a printed copy, the conditions required for
slander were met. This must be inaccurate since it is
libel that is written. Suggests to me that the original entry was written from memory/hearsay rather than from a trusted source. But that's just my 2 cents worth. --
bodnotbod 22:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Or it could just be that they didn't know the difference, and thought they were synonyms... Snowspinner 22:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with Snowspinner's first comment - this was an early ruling and has some historical significance (even if it no longer has international attention). We routinely keep far less significant articles. And while I am sympathetic to David Simpson's desire for privacy, court cases are in the public domain.
Rossami 23:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ah. Guess what? I'd completely failed to notice just how early the case was. I've been very, very silly. Yes, most of the sources I checked would not be archived back that far... because they didn't exist... slinks off with head in hands... -- bodnotbod 23:38, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- If what's been said about notability is true (first time a Usenet spat actually resulted in a lawsuit?), then it sounds worthy of inclusion. The early date sounds plausible in explaining the lack of archiving. It'd be interesting to get an opinion from someone specialising/working in internet law, but failing that, tentative keep - perhaps it could be usefully linked into libel and internet law articles. Suitov 10:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Cribcage 03:22, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Significant. - David Gerard 22:18, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. notable enough. Rhymeless 00:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unless a legal case is notable in legal history or the popular media, it has no notable right in an encyclopaedia Dainamo 11:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is probably the very least important case in the world (and, no, I don't think that would be a reason for inclusion):
- It has no presence on the Web and no reference on Findlaw or Lexis-Nexis. On Lexis-Nexis, there are 51 other cases, in courts of much greater jurisdiction, prior to 1992 that relate to both libel and cyberlaw.
- It is a municipal court decision of a town that is now a part of the city of Toronto. In other words, the case doesn't even have any effect because the jurisdiction no longer even exists and is now trumped by the superior law of Toronto along with the laws of the province and the nation, as it was always. No person in the world remains subject to this decision.
- This was not a radical change in interpretation of the law, as most landmark cases are. It is a minor application to the Usenet of well-established law. It is a small distinction between libel and slander. The conclusions of other courts, whether they agree with this decision, are much more important. Other courts have and will contradict or agree with Steinberg's judgement, and with more insight and effect. I can see many court cases after this one which contradict this judge's interpretation.
- We have no knowledge of the accuracy or heritage of the description of this case. There is no evidence that this was actually ever in court.
- Keeping this as a first "lawsuit from Usenet" is silly. Most importantly, there is no evidence that it is, and it is likely not. We can create articles about firsts for all sorts of unimportant cases and they will all be useless to everyone. No one is going to be researching this case. The case is also really not that early. Usenet has been around since 1979 and the Internet has been around longer than that. Due to the low level of this case, I would bet there were several other cases in other municipal courts in those 13 years, at the very least which determine what is libel on the Internet if not on Usenet. This case has no bearing on the "nature of the Internet". It has some bearing on the nature of Usenet, but that bearing is determined, apparently, by the same means which can be used to determine libel anywhere. Most certainly, it does not belong in an encyclopedia.
- - Centrx 07:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Second round of deletion debate may be found at Talk:Simpson v. Savoie/Delete.
The following is the VfD discussion. Note there are still some live issues.
Note: I have added this again because it the votes are too confusing and I have no idea whether there is a consensus to delete it or not. Will those of you who made "tenative" votes or ones qualified by some set of conditions please make up your minds. UninvitedCompany 21:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
- Even with the ambiguous votes counted as deletes, it doesn't look like there is a clear consensus. I would have removed and kept it. -- Ben Brockert 21:48, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, since it's been re-listed, I'll take this opportunity to note that so far nobody has found any evidence that this situation actually went to court. The only evidence of the dispute consists of bad-tempered newsgroup posts, none of which mention a lawsuit. This article is similar to the now-defunct
Simpson Family Trust -- something from a plausible alternate universe.
Delete it as unverified.Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Delete.Agree with Wile. E.. Good call UninvitedCompany. Andrewa 07:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)- Delete. -- EuroTom 23:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- I have put in a request to verify the existence of this case. I'm told the search could take 6-8 weeks to complete because it might require a paper-search. If this is a real case, the decision about whether this case was notable/encyclopedic still remains a judgement call. I still vote keep but request that this discussion be archived until the response has a chance to come back.
Rossami 13:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Second the motion to shelve the discussion til the response comes back. Thanks for taking the extra trouble to verify it.
Wile E. Heresiarch 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- (Change of vote) Agree. Andrewa 05:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Second the motion to shelve the discussion til the response comes back. Thanks for taking the extra trouble to verify it.
Wile E. Heresiarch 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If this is really such an important case, it should have left some dust somewhere on the Internet (or Usenet). An Internet libel case that ends up being mentioned rarely on the internet itself is surely of little influence! JFW | T@lk 11:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems like a non-event, and if it does turn out to be significant for Internet history, it can always be written up again. Tonusperegrinus 15:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Snowspinner 22:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
An episode in the life of David Simpson, whose vanity page was recently deleted. Google returns no web hits (other than WP) for Simpson Savoie, and in newsgroups it turns up a few, including this one [1] which shows that the "landmark case" involved members of role-playing games clubs who weren't being very nice to each other. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - interesting but not a "landmark case" - Tεx τ urε 15:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - regardless of the nature of the dispute, it was an early ruling about the natire of the Internet, and is of historical interest on those grounds. Furthermore, if every article that were interesting but somewhat unimportant were to come up on VfD, VfD would rapidly become the largest page on Wikipedia. Part of Wikipedia's value is that it actually has listings on some of these things - if we were to delete this case, then someone researching it on the Internet would have no resources. As it stands, they have one, and that's a good thing. Snowspinner 15:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Tentative keep, but there should be verification that it was indeed a 'landmark case': case background, any external links, etc. Alcarillo 16:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep if it's real; seems significant enough, even if not a "landmark case". Everyking 16:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless verified. Possible fiction - not listed in
cases at
CyberLibel (a Canadian lawyer's site). --
Zigger 19:15, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
- Delete. No reference given. Dubious source. Case not mentioned on relevant websites. No voters have claimed that the case ever existed. Article confuses slander and libel (deliberately?), making it even less likely. -- Zigger 22:03, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't want this included in your encyclopedia -David Simpson
- I'm uncertain whether you have a meaningful say in that. At least, on the grounds of personal preference. Why don't you want it included? Snowspinner 20:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Has made no impact on the British media. I searched on a few sources (Two broadsheet, ie serious newspapers, and the BBC amongst others) - if it were a 'landmark' case about internet law it would have deserved a mention. I also feel that if you're resorting to newsgroup links that suggests something's lacking. -- bodnotbod 20:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks context to support the "landmark" claim.
JFW | T@lk 20:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC) - I want this deleted because this case was a very emotional one for me. I don't really want to see it debated in your little forum. Also Savoie passed away a few years ago, so the case isn't that important.
- I've voted for deletion because I can't see that it warrants inclusion. I'm sympathetic to your feelings. I would recommend keeping a cool head as you argue this out. Try not to resort to belittling the project as this will not help your cause. I'd also like to suggest to everyone else that we handle this sensitively. -- bodnotbod 20:48, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- While I understand that this is a touchy subject for you, I don't think that's grounds for deletion. If it happened, it's a matter of history, and it's fair for an encyclopedia to cover it. Most of the participants of the American Civil War have also died, but that does not make that article any less relevent or important. Snowspinner 21:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. While not "landmark" seems notable. I'll remove "landmark" from the article.--
Samuel J. Howard 21:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you have a source not listed in this discussion so far, I'm sure we'd like to see it. --
bodnotbod 21:35, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't have other sources, there are some more things on Savoie and Simpson lying around the internet, but nothing illuminating. But, reading the usenet post cited this seems to be an interesting part of the "D&D is Satanic" debates in North America. Also, I find it notable because having been on USENET in the past I've seen lots of "I'll Sue You" debates. One that went to court seems notable, I don't know of any others. If there are better controling precedents I'd prefer those listed, but it seems reasonable to keep this one until those are tracked down.-- Samuel J. Howard 21:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you have a source not listed in this discussion so far, I'm sure we'd like to see it. --
bodnotbod 21:35, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm uneasy. Looking at the history the article, at one point, said Judge Steinberg ruled that since the material in question could exist as a printed copy, the conditions required for
slander were met. This must be inaccurate since it is
libel that is written. Suggests to me that the original entry was written from memory/hearsay rather than from a trusted source. But that's just my 2 cents worth. --
bodnotbod 22:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Or it could just be that they didn't know the difference, and thought they were synonyms... Snowspinner 22:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with Snowspinner's first comment - this was an early ruling and has some historical significance (even if it no longer has international attention). We routinely keep far less significant articles. And while I am sympathetic to David Simpson's desire for privacy, court cases are in the public domain.
Rossami 23:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ah. Guess what? I'd completely failed to notice just how early the case was. I've been very, very silly. Yes, most of the sources I checked would not be archived back that far... because they didn't exist... slinks off with head in hands... -- bodnotbod 23:38, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- If what's been said about notability is true (first time a Usenet spat actually resulted in a lawsuit?), then it sounds worthy of inclusion. The early date sounds plausible in explaining the lack of archiving. It'd be interesting to get an opinion from someone specialising/working in internet law, but failing that, tentative keep - perhaps it could be usefully linked into libel and internet law articles. Suitov 10:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Cribcage 03:22, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Significant. - David Gerard 22:18, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. notable enough. Rhymeless 00:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unless a legal case is notable in legal history or the popular media, it has no notable right in an encyclopaedia Dainamo 11:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is probably the very least important case in the world (and, no, I don't think that would be a reason for inclusion):
- It has no presence on the Web and no reference on Findlaw or Lexis-Nexis. On Lexis-Nexis, there are 51 other cases, in courts of much greater jurisdiction, prior to 1992 that relate to both libel and cyberlaw.
- It is a municipal court decision of a town that is now a part of the city of Toronto. In other words, the case doesn't even have any effect because the jurisdiction no longer even exists and is now trumped by the superior law of Toronto along with the laws of the province and the nation, as it was always. No person in the world remains subject to this decision.
- This was not a radical change in interpretation of the law, as most landmark cases are. It is a minor application to the Usenet of well-established law. It is a small distinction between libel and slander. The conclusions of other courts, whether they agree with this decision, are much more important. Other courts have and will contradict or agree with Steinberg's judgement, and with more insight and effect. I can see many court cases after this one which contradict this judge's interpretation.
- We have no knowledge of the accuracy or heritage of the description of this case. There is no evidence that this was actually ever in court.
- Keeping this as a first "lawsuit from Usenet" is silly. Most importantly, there is no evidence that it is, and it is likely not. We can create articles about firsts for all sorts of unimportant cases and they will all be useless to everyone. No one is going to be researching this case. The case is also really not that early. Usenet has been around since 1979 and the Internet has been around longer than that. Due to the low level of this case, I would bet there were several other cases in other municipal courts in those 13 years, at the very least which determine what is libel on the Internet if not on Usenet. This case has no bearing on the "nature of the Internet". It has some bearing on the nature of Usenet, but that bearing is determined, apparently, by the same means which can be used to determine libel anywhere. Most certainly, it does not belong in an encyclopedia.
- - Centrx 07:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Second round of deletion debate may be found at Talk:Simpson v. Savoie/Delete.