Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheFlyOnTheWall.com

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. — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TheFlyOnTheWall.com

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

No real notability. A single lawsuit does not make it notable. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. with respect to the web site, completely nonnotable, not covered by third-party sources except with respect to the misappropriation case (which makes up the entirety of the article). With respect to the court case itself, Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., there's at least an argument that it may become notable, but for now it is not. It's just getting the same news coverage that any appellate case gets, and Wikipedia is not for news reports. If we had an article on hot news misappropriation, it would be worth a mention there, along with International News Service v. Associated Press (where "hot news" currently redirects) and National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., the leading cases in this area. But this case is not achieved any notability. It's possible, now that it has been reversed on appeal, that the appellate case may get some attention of the commentators, but it hasn't yet. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc. - Really not an issue for AFD, the case is notable, the website isn't outside the one case. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the case is notable? It's only a day old, and right now is merely newsworthy. It may attain notability (as that term is used in Wikipedia), but it isn't there yet. Right now, it's just another case of a claimed hot news misappropriation not surviving copyright preemption. TJRC (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place to debate whether or not it is notable would be in the proper article to begin with. It is at least arguable that the case *may* be notable (it is cited three times already, which indicates a possibility to pass wp:n) The website itself clearly is not. Move it, give it a few weeks to develop, if it doesn't then AFD it. It is a matter of procedure. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is for the article. There's nothing wrong with moving it if that's the right outcome, but the question under discussion is whether the subject of the article -- regardless of whether the subject is considered to be the organization or the case -- is notable. Moving it to a new name and then re-nominating it as a new subject is an exercise in timewasting.

You mention it's been cited three times, can you please elaborate on that?

I normally tend toward keeping, if there's a chance that the subject may become notable, and deletion would result in a loss of information that ought to be in the article once it becomes notable, but that's not the case here. What we have is one paragraph that describes a district court decision that has been reversed. The one-sentence second paragraph (which I added) makes clear that the district court's holding -- the entire basis of paragraph one -- was basically negated on appeal. It's essentially a null article. "This happened in a court; but then it was thrown out". Essentially, there's no value in keeping such null content just in case the case might become notable some time in the future.

As a side note, I prefer to think of the AFD process as a discussion, rather than a debate. "Debate" implies existing immalleable positions, where each participant seeks to win support for his or her position. Instead I see this as a discussion in an attempt to determine consensus. I usually don't change my position in an AFD, but sometimes I have, when either new facts come to light (the cites you say the case has may be an example of this) or a well-reasoned post by another participant. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three cites I am speaking of are already in the article. They would indicate at least a possibility that the court case is notable, even if the website isn't as a stand alone article. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I misunderstood what you meant. You're referring to references in the article. When you said it had been "cited three times," I thought you were saying the case had been cited as an authority in other cases or academic journals. The references in the article merely indicate news reporting, and WP:NOTNEWS. All we have are well-referenced statements that a case was decided and then reversed; effectively zero content. It's news reporting, and not of much, and no indication of notability. If the case were being cited as an authority, depending on how used, that could be an indicium of notability (which is why I was interested in them). But the three references now present are merely indications of news. TJRC (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2011 (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.