Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist ad controversy

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 Merge and redirect. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craigslist ad controversy

Craigslist ad controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This event doesn't seem to have sufficiently widespread notability to me -- although the article claims multiple reliable sources, only one is cited (a column at SFgate.com). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've updated the page with more sources now.--Urban Rose 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
None of the above sources are currently used in the article, also it shows it has had substantial media coverage globally. Some of the articles have been published some time after the event showing that it has had a lasting effect. The event is also commonly referred to in another articles related to internet privacy. It has been documented extensively over a long period of time making it a historic event. The article event is too significant to merge, and if all the sources were used it would also be too large. A more suitable title for this may be The Craigslist experiment.--Sinister beard man (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — Sinister beard man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - all these sources have no bearing on whether this article, under this name, should be kept; the incident already has all the coverage it needs at Internet privacy#Jason Fortuny and Craigslist. Also, please stop removing the SPA (single purpose account) tags I placed after your username. You have five edits, four of which are to this AFD and your account was created 6 minutes before coming straight to AFD to argue "keep". KleenupKrew (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It was nominated because it didn't have enough sources, this has now been fixed.--Sinister beard man (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is one single event of unclear notability, with nothing to indicate why it of all things should have its own article titled "Craigslist ad controversy". Any important ad controversies can and should be included in the main Craigslist article in any case. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, the entry Internet privacy#Jason Fortuny and Craigslist provides adequate coverage for a one-time event of questionable notability. A short reference to that material from within the Craigslist article would be appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - there is in fact nothing to merge. The article is just a copy-and-paste of the Internet Privacy article's section on the incident (with no note to that effect, in violation of the GFDL). See also the concerns of other editors that this nn event be deemed the Craigslist ad controversy. -- Vary | Talk 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see nothing new that isn't already covered in the Internet Privacy article. Nothing warrants a split-out for such a small quantity of information. It's best left rolled in at Internet Privacy. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Craigslist#Controversies_and_illegal_activities_by_users, since there are more controversies about Craiglist ads than this one. Information is a duplication from existing articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There are many craigslist scams and "controversies," this is not significantly different from any of them. User Enric Naval has good points.(Community editor (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. no indication this is notable enough to warrant its own article. Eusebeus (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Urban Rose. William Ortiz (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Internet privacy#Jason Fortuny and Craigslist, where the information can be better and more succinctly handled.-- danntm T C 20:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete seems the best course here; it's already covered in the proposed merge target and this is essentially an end-run around the deletion of Jason Fortuny, after all. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: If an article named Jason Fortuny was the contents of this one, it would be a WP:COATRACK and need to be renamed. William Ortiz (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into internet privacy per above. Hohohahaha (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Is basically just a cutpaste of a section of Internet privacy so I don't know if it needs to exist as a separate article after all. Sinister Beard Man, feel free to add those sources to Internet privacy.--Urban Rose 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note. If this article is to be kept, it must be under a less-generic name as there seem to be various online "controversies" on a regular basis. A mention of this in Internet privacy should be sufficient... but no more per WP:WEIGHT. Incorporate mention and appropriate sources into Internet privacy and delete the rest. B.Wind (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge: Per above delete votes. It is not notable to have its own article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2008 (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.