Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikipediaClassAction.Org

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 of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision taken to redirect to Wikipedia Class Action. Johnleemk | Talk 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be nothing more to this than someone slapping up a webpage. Possibly a hoax? In any case, WP is not a web directory. If this lawsuit is filed or covered in the media, we will then have sources to construct a verifiable account. Until then, delete. Gamaliel 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, if anything. Tim Pierce 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't Criticism of Wikipedia be a better place for this? At any rate, it is unlikely that they have sufficient grounds for a lawsuit (class-action or otherwise) against Wikipedia under current US law. (The fact that a supposed "class action" suit isn't being promoted by a class-action law firm, already filing the complaint and looking for plaintiffs, is deeply suspicious). --EngineerScotty 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above. This is a really interesting case of incestuous relationships within Wikipedia, and merely deleting it will fall into the clutches of the cynical. Allow it to exist, redirect to a factual page, and possibly add the webpage as an external link to keep everything fair. The website exists, and whether it's a hoax or not, it shou ld (probably) be linked to, at least for the time being. Budgiekiller 22:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be even more appropriate, now that I have looked more closely, to merge this with Quakeaid. The WikipediaClassAction.org ___domain is registered to a Jennifer Monroe of Long Beach, NY, who is already a player in the QuakeAID snafu. Tim Pierce 22:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I agree (and wrote as much) that this can't be verified as anything more than a webpage, it actually does exist, and the facts are as stated, and noteworthy. We routinely have articles on far less notable stuff. We have plenty of examples where the matter of controversy and the reports and organizations involved in it get separate articles, that are not redirected; for example, in a much larger matter (thus, both articles more extensive, but that doesn't affect the argument), Warren Commission. Bill 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real-world controversy relating to this. Yes, we have some articles about non-notable subjects, but that's hardly a reason to create more. When you get down to it, this site is one guy considering a lawsuit, and that's just not notable any way you look at it.

-- Adrian Lamo 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Changing my vote to Tim's solution (good detective work!) which should satisfy everybody. Merge with Quakeaid, with redirect. Bill 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for now. It doesn't appear to be a hoax, but neither is it notable. If nothing involving it has happened in a couple of months, then I'd be willing to vote for deletion. --Fermatprime 22:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment an almost identicle page is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Class_Action. --Bachrach44 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page is most likely a hoax, and even if it's not, it doesn't meet WP:WEB. There is no proof it's real, and no claim of notability. Just because it's about us, we shouldn't ignore our policies. --Bachrach44 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oops - I re-created the article by accident because I didn't see all this. I have since merged my version of the article with Wikipedia Class Action ... delete at will, or keep the redirect --Nerd42 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge/Redirect to WikipediaClassAction. Merging/redirecting anywhere else would be misleading. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (if not deleted, merge into QuakeAid) Ashibaka tock 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with QuakeAid as per Tim. 23skidoo 01:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I was on the cusp of submitting this to AfD, and got beat to it. It's not notable, and doesn't warrant including in Criticism of Wikipedia, as it's not actual criticism. It's exhortation of others to criticise. Within Wikipedia, we have a policy regarding legal threats; it's counterintuitive that external legal threats towards Wikipedia should warrant their very own article. At the very best, it should be merged, but this isn't a merge vote. If this picks up momentum, by all means, resubmit it -- later, after it's notable. -- Adrian Lamo 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I think all the other articles on Wikipedia Class Action should be redirects to Wikipedia Class Action. --Nerd42 02:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Merge & redirect --Simon Cursitor 08:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and Wikipedia Class Action. The ONLY reason some might consider it 'notable' is because it involves Wikipedia, but generally articles aren't kept on another subject's coattails. It still gets ZERO relevant google hits, has ZERO Alexa recognition, and there is no evidence of independent news coverage along the lines of WP:CORP. If it was "Disney Class Action", and still had ZERO coverage like this does, I can't imagine anyone voting to keep. Anyone can register a similar website and make similar claims. I have a registered ___domain www.{nameofstatewiderabblerouser}sucks.com, but that doesn't make it as notable as {statewiderabblerouser}. I could claim I am considering a class action suit against Microsoft to get compensation for everytime that everyone has gotten the blue screen of death, but unless the courts and/or press and/or public agree I have a point, it's not notable. Don't feed the trolls. 24.17.48.241 09:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean it hasn't been in the news? I've seen it mentioned in the news. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where? Tedernst | talk 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or if not, then merge and redirect to QuakeAID Tedernst | talk 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bullshit.  Grue  22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, probably a hoax, write something about it when it actually happens. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to QuakeAID. -Sean Curtin 06:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong DELETE it now or else it will become the new GNAA and we will never be able to get rid of it. Firebug 06:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • LOL in other words what you're saying is that this is notable but you just don't like it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to QuakeAID. --cesarb 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • COMMENT - Given that we are stuck with Wikipedia Class Action and the 2 entries are duplicates, can we now have this as a REDIRECT to Wikipedia Class Action? This vote looks like a no consensus as well, and its silly to have 2 duplicate entries. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      You can merge after it closes. The AfD decision is really only for "keep" or "delete"; you do not need AfD to do a merge. --cesarb 01:46, 21 December 2005 (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.