Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uber protests and legal actions

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. I am interpreting the "oppose" comments as "Keep." This close is w/o prejudice to continuing merge discussions elsewhere. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uber protests and legal actions[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is (virtually) identical to Uber#Legal_status_by_country. I propose merging any additional content into the main article for Uber and deleting this article. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. This article was created as a result of this RfC. jamacfarlane is certainly acting in good faith with this AfD and the problem outlined about Uber#Legal_status_by_country is definitely valid. But I believe the solution is to largely move that content out of that article and into this one. Note by making this change, we may run into more problems of the sort outlined at Talk:Uber#not_neutral_at_all. That is, the main Uber article would appear to be even more disproportionately and inappropriately favourable to Uber (see WP:NPOV) than it currently is, as all the legal concerns would be moved out of that article into this one. --Yamla (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise the article was created after discussion, but after three years it remains a duplicate of the section on legal status in the main article (Uber#Legal_status_by_country). There was consensus to summarise the section on legal issues for the main article, but this has not happened, hence my proposal to delete the Uber protests and legal actions page and retain the content in the main article for Uber. I would be be equally happy if the page was kept, but would want to delete the duplicate text from the main article, as having identical text (not even transcluded) in two places isn't desirable. I take @Yamla's point about stripping the criticism from the main article, so at least a summary of the criticism should be retained in the main article. jamacfarlane (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to delete this article and merge the contents back into the original, I wouldn't be sad. So, I'm changing my vote to a "weak oppose". --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose The content in Uber#Legal_status_by_country should be a condensed summary inside Uber#Criticism with a main article referencing to this one. The current Uber article is already too long, and could benefit from copy edit, while preserving the detailed international cases in this article. Shushugah (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2018 (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.