Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domain name speculation

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 keep. (X! · talk)  · @904  ·  20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Domain name speculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no sources that distinguish this from Cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is defined as registering domains in bad faith to profit on a trademark. Domain name speculation, along with Domaining is registering ___domain in bad faith to profit off of future trademarks, also illegal. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domaining_(2nd_nomination). Magicalthirty (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Cybersquatting. I found it funny to note that after clicking the 'find sources: news' link the first article is titled Cybersquatting up as ___domain name speculation grows[1]. Magicalthirty (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: And consumer fraud has seen new forms and dimensions with the buildout and rise in popularity of the Internet, that doesn't equate the Internet with fraud. Kbrose (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is quite obvious that the sole intention of the user Magicalthirty is causing trouble over ___domain related issues and this is clearly an attempt to by this use to impose their own opinion as fact. Domain name speculation is not cybersquatting and this issue has been clearly resolved.Jmccormac (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect Domaining here. Despite the fact that I loathe the huge amount of 'low content, low value' sites that litter the Internet thanks to ___domain farmers, I do believe that at least one of these two articles needs to remain in order to provide proper encyclopedic coverage of the practice of legal ___domain farming. (I'd pick "___domain farming" as the article name, but apart from a Slashdot mention, it's not used much.) --Versageek 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment You may be right, but then again there are several news articles that equate Domain name speculation and Cybersquatting. Here's another. Magicalthirty (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment It is quite obvious that the user Magicalthirty is now grasping at straws to defend what is merely their own opinion. The linked article is from 1999 and predates much of the ___domain dispute resolution mechanisms that have been created in the last ten years. The focus of the linked article was a US DOJ antitrust probe into the position of NSI in managing the .com and .net registry rather than cybersquatting. There is a throwaway reference to cybersquatting in the article but it simply reflects some of the opinion at the time. Jmccormac (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The attempt to delete the article is clearly in bad faith, as secondary sources (cited in the article) clearly establish notability of the term and practice independent of cybersquatting. It really doesn't matter what people may think about the practice, the fact is, it exists and even major ___domain registrars are participating, benefiting, and facilitating the practice. Before deciding on deleting or redirecting these articles should be given some time to evolve and establish whether they are the same or if there is a distinction. There seem to be some aspects that would support the idea that not all domaining is pure ___domain speculation. Kbrose (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reluctantly, as it stands the article is a fair description of the practice. Domaining should be redirected to it. Anyone like myself reading it who has tried getting domains, even going as far as having them valued and bidding on them knows it's the same Internet land-grab as cybersquatting - just doing it within the law. --Brian McNeil /^talk 11:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep A major controversial practice in the internet. Furthermore, this is more widely used than "Domaining". Triplestop x3 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As much as I dislike ___domain name speculators, it's not the same as cybersquatting. Domaining should be merged here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and merge/redirect to Domaining - In a way, cybersquatting is a subset of domaining and ___domain name speculation -- but it's an illegal subset, very notable in its own right, and deserves its own article (although it should be mentioned in Domaining). But since much domaining and ___domain name speculation is legal, redirecting them to cybersquatting would not be fair or accurate. On the other hand, ___domain name speculation seems to be clear subset of domaining, and is not distinct or notable enough to warrant its own article, but does deserve a mention in the Domaining article. HMishkoff (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cybersquatting does have its own page at Cybersquatting. It is even linked in the Domain name speculation article and the Domaining article. Domain name speculation has a longer history than Domaining. The reality is that both domaining and cybersquatting are subsets of ___domain name speculation. Jmccormac (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Domain name speculation covers a large number of other activities that are clearly not cyber squatting. Given that nearly any ordinary English word can be trademarked (outside its generic meaning) the future trademarks comment is laughable and shows the desperation of the proposer.Kiore (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cybersquatters whos only intention is to delute the internet until somebody who comes around who is willing to pay them a ransom in order to actually do something usefull with the ___domain should not be allowed to make their claim about being a legitimate business or even industry on wikipedia. Monetisation practices like they are referred to in the domaining article only apply to a very small fraction of domainers and have the only intend of financing cybersquatting endeavors until somebody finally pays the ransom asked for. The only reason cybersquatting does from a law perspective only apply to trademark domains is that it would be hard to find a general rule for any other bad faith intend that would proof stable enough for law changes. Just because its hard to bring about laws that criminalize cybersquatting in general does not make it a legitimate business. If the article is deleted it should be redirected to cybersquatting as squatting accoratly describes the activities most so called domainers indulge in. People who provide actuall content are into site flipping and not domaining/ cybersquatting. This is a entirely different topic and in no way related to domaining or ___domain name speculation.92.200.52.241 (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A separate and distinct concept that is backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn: Its agreed on that there is a concept behind cybersquatting. thats why cybersquatting already has its space on wikipedia. I don't see the need to add more pages. The concept of cybersquatting can be further explained on the already existing page.92.200.52.241 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out several times, Domain Name Speculation and Domaining are not synonymous with cyber squatting. The constant repetition of this Big lie does not make it true.Kiore (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2009 (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.