Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Class Action

Add links
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 of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Class Action[edit]

Abstain. The page originally had {{db|this has got to be a hoax}} on it, but I don't think it applies for CSD. Also note there's a redirect to the page, which should be deleted as well, if this one does. Interiot 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is some guy trying to get either attention or money (or both) at our expense. Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_Class_Action for more info. There's no reason to try and help him out. --Bachrach44 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-reference, crystal ball. Gazpacho 18:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the guy that wrote the article. I was tooling around on digg.com, noticed a mention of the site and the suit, and decided that there was no better place to document it than on wikipedia. I'd definitely say I'd like the site to get attention, but not the one-sided "wikipedia is awful" type that I've heard spewed in the press. drakaan
    • According to the page history it was made by User:Tedernst. Are you the same person? Regardless of who made it, the page doesn't meet WP:WEB. There is no proof that it's even real, and no real claim to notability. We get a million pages like this a day on wikipedia (most of which are admittedly put up by the page's creators looking for attention, which is why I assumed the same motives for this page). Just because it's about wikipedia doesn't mean it can skip by WP's criteria for notability. --Bachrach44 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drakaan made the second version of the page, which I redirected to the one we're now discussing. [1] --Interiot 18:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a choice of reasons to delete. Unverifiable gets my vote. Certainly not worth an article until the lawsuit is initiated. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm new here, so I guess I'm not sure what the criteria for "verifiable" is. Granted, there may or may not be a lawsuit, but there's definitely a website purporting to be trying to start one. Does that not count? drakaan
  • Delete. Does not meet verifablity requirement. Who has been hurt monitarily by Wikipedia? This has to be a hoax. Movementarian 19:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to QuakeAID. There's a pre-existing page there, it's very clear the two organizations are connected, and even if it's alleged attempt that doesn't actually spawn a lawsuit, I think the QuakeAID article should at least briefly mention the incident. --Interiot 19:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. The organization registered its domain name yesterday, has filed no legal action, and makes no claim to have attracted the attention of anyone other than its founders. This fails notability standards for any subject. Its avowed purpose of attacking Wikipedia creates no special exception. Durova 19:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno about attracting no attention - it made it as a digg.com article, which means it'll likely get slashdotted soon, as well. drakaan
      • While the digg story has 864 diggs currently [2], it has yet to catch on in the press. [3] --Interiot 21:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How come your links show me 2 newspaper articles about Wikipedia Class Action Lawsuit and over 1200 diggs? Whilst I don't really understand what a digg is, I am imagining that the wider community are very much taking this seriously. Not a hoax. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry about that - I didn't do my homework before creating the page. I saw the website and the discussion at Village Pump and saw something much bigger than it really is. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Tedernst | talk 19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - info covered in QuakeAID. also self-referencial. Agnte 21:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 87.74.15.60 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... I didn't know this article already existed and I started Wikipediaclassaction.org So ... they should be merged, or whatever. --Nerd42 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikipediaClassAction.Org. Gamaliel 23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge/Redirect to WikipediaClassAction.Org. It is real and important. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh? And you know this how, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you haven't been following the news, there have been several individuals who are currently suing Wikipedia in the wake of the Seigenthaler story, and have quoted the Wikipedia Class Action web site. I have seen 6 of them that have done this, but I don't know how many there will be. It is utterly absurd to write this off as a hoax. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to QuakeAID its the same fools at BAOU running this.  ALKIVAR™ 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not real because there's been no legal action. One doesn't start a class action lawsuit with a Google ad. I call BS. Nuke it. FCYTravis 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiability, self-referential, etc. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if not deleted, merge into QuakeAid) Ashibaka tock 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikipediaClassAction.Org -- Adrian Lamo 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fooey on all you deletes What, are you all nuts? There's a class action suit against Wikipedia and you think there shouldn't be an article about it? I mean, seriously, where are teh NPOV standards now? --Nerd42 02:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No there isn't - there's a webpage put out by recognized con artists that claims that they want to find people to launch a class action lawsuit against WP. If/when they actually do get it off the ground, then it'll be notable. Until then, it's just another website put out by a bunch of nuts (of which there are plenty on the net and no need to validate them with entries here). --Bachrach44 02:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bachrach44's right, the threat of a class action lawsuit and a cute domain registration does not a class action suit make. This goes more into the category of "semi-anonymous nuisance lawsuit threat". The Cunctator 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very important article, discussing an issue relevant to both Wikipedia and Free Speech. Bradybd 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with deletion. The second I heard about this I wanted to learn more. Finding information about it, since Jennifer Monroe has been deleted, was difficult and would be considerably more so if this deletion request goes through. Though I can certainly live with this content living at QuakeAID, since an "ignore the kooks" policy is probably mostly good. Don't tap the glass! On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia, not a "pretty shiny things"-pedia. That said, this article should live at WikipediaClassAction.org, since there's no evidence of an actual class action lawsuit in the offing, and I'd be shocked if one came into existence. Though I'd love to see a judge get annoyed by it.The Cunctator 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with QuakeAID. --Merovingian 03:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This issue has no objective documentation, and well, never may. But Wikipedians have a platform here for documenting this and finding more information on the issue. (unsigned comment by 66.168.15.151)
  • Merge and redirect (both redirects) to QuakeAID. The reason not to delete the redirects is that keeping them there will discourage recreation. And you know, you really didn't have to file an AFD to do this yourself. REDUCE AFD BLOAT NOW!! - David Gerard 08:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is related to Wikipedia is of interest to many wikipedians abakharev 08:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable --Simon Cursitor 08:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and WikipediaClassAction.Org. 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 09:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect (both redirects) to QuakeAID. This brought enough media attention, people come to wikipedia to get more information about it. If the site is a nonsense that's what they expect to find, not a "there is no such a page". Hell, what's the problem with you deletionist against a innocent #redirect page? : ) -- user:avsa (not logged)
  • Keep in Category:Wikipedia publicity --JWSchmidt 13:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Cunctator. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • <boggle> The Cunctator voted to keep just 9 paragraphs above: are you sure you read that correctly? —Phil | Talk 10:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page. By coincidence, the German article on the same subject is also a candidate for deletion. See [4] --Voyager 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) By the way: Löschen means delete.[reply]
  • Keep Important that it gets the negative press it deserves SupaDawg 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or redirect to the wikinews page, or Greg Lloyd Smith's page. Greg Lloyd Smith is a scam artist (working under the pseudonym of Jennifer Monroe). If more people know that he's a scam artist, feewer people will fall for his scams. JeffBurdges 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reminds me of the saying "don't feed the trolls"... Don't feed the scammers. --Mrmiscellanious 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect

Doesn't seem notable, but it makes some people nervous, so it does merit a response. But by keeping a real link to their ad-driven site, we're basically paying them for their service, which seems inappropriate. Sanbeg 22:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge a skimmed down version, there's already a bit at QuakeAID. -- user:zanimum
    • It shouldn't be at QuakeAID since there's no proof that the two are related. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's pretty strong evidence that they're related. Jennifer Monroe is clearly listed as a spokesperson for QuakeAID [5], and is also clearly listed in the WHOIS for wikipediaclassaction.org [6]. Also, QuakeAID is hosted at http://quakeaid.baou.com/, and on the same day that wikipediaclassaction.org was registered, baou.com put out a press release noting the existence of wikipediaclassaction.org. [7] --Interiot 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahh, but Jennifer Monroe is believed to be a pseudonym of Greg Lloyd Smith, so if its not part of QuakeAID, it could be listed along with his other scams on his page. It would also be best to know if WCA is a scam or an attempt at revenge. Someone should contact him pretending to be defamed by wikipedia, and see if he want to help you sue, or just want to take your money. JeffBurdges 02:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very good point. QuakeAid has always claimed that Wikipedia defamed them, and have a legitimate reason to want to sue Wikipedia. Hence that is a claim of legitimacy. Oh, by the way, note the media links on the page. Comfortably meets WP:WEB. If it is a hoax, its a notable hoax. Would it have been discussed so heavily on Wikipedia's forums if it wasn't notable? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hasn't got any alexa data, non notable. Agent Blightsoot 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it does have media reports. Read WP:WEB - Alexa is not the only criteria. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, lets not exaggerate. It's had a view news posts on a few notable websites. Big deal, this article is only here because it is somewhat related to wikipedia. I could use the media report article to create bucket fulls of articles on websites, which are of minor importance to the internet and the world around us. Agent Blightsoot 10:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bullshit nn site.  Grue  21:56, 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. Iff they actually file a lawsuit, this can be unmerged. -Sean Curtin 06:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is a hoax, its a notable hoax. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not yet. There's really only been one timid mention [8] in the press so far, which means that it's still very transient and will likely be forgotten in a month or two. For it to be a story that sticks around, either a lawsuit needs to happen, or there needs to be significantly more press attention paid to it. (and if these things do happen, the page will very likely be recreated) --Interiot 06:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need something to balance the hoax, as many people are already pointing to the hoax as real! This wikipedia page offers the information needed to protect the reputation of wikipedia
  • Keep It is good to have a place where scams like this are exposed. - Pompoms 17 December 2005
  • Keep I read it, was informed by it, and from there was lead to places where I could get more information. It's encyclopedic, its decent, it flows, and it's an article....why would we delete it?--Orgullomoore 15:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am what some might call an "Inclusionist". I found the article to be informative, and after finding the subject website, wikipedia was the first place I looked for info. I feel that the diversity of information and inclusion of obscure entries is one of wikipedias strengths. I have never seen a more complete rundown of the Star Wars universe than on wikipedia, if random charecters mentioned briefly in one of a multitude of extended universe books deserve to be here, surely this article does too.-- forgot to post my username when I posted this yesterday-- Drn8 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable hoax or notable madness, deserves an article in either case. Gerrit CUTEDH 21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or possibly merge. I saw the original post on a mailing-list, the reply pointed to this page on Wikipedia. This page is the only source I've seen giving a (counter-)balancing point-of-view---that is likely a hoax and backing them up with suitable references. Sladen
  • Delete or redirect to QuakeAID. Jokestress 18:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A good test for how well Wikipedia can maintain POV on a topic close to its heart. — David Remahl 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Wikipedia Watch or QuakeAID or some other more relevant article. --Howrealisreal 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect with QuakeAID. I'm not convinced that it isn't notable. It grabbed quite a bit of attention. But since there is no actual lawsuit, nor it seems any actual plan to mount one it merits a mention in QuakeAID but not its own article. There are less notable events that get a 'graph. Jasongetsdown 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to QuakeAID. --cesarb 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, but please refer the plaintiff to the letter of Pressdram to Arkell. Joe D (t) 04:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: important story, regardless of how it actually turns out. In the ultimate alternative move to wikipedia namespace. Phil | Talk 10:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I actually thought it was funny because, not only is this being discussed in the Village Pump news (with 4 different articles about it - that's more coverage than the Seigenthaler story got), there is actually now a project to respond to it, and this project is massive. So the choice really should be whether to call this Wikipedia Class Action or Wikipedia Class Action org. That's it. The fact that someone has put up a spoof web site on Wikipedia Class Action .com suggests that org is the right name, but otherwise no. Also, remember that Quake Aid has a valid reason to want to sue Wikipedia as they feel that their charity was misrepresented by Wikipedia (the fact that IRS and FBI haven't closed them down suggests that outside of Wikipedia they are actually believed to be a real charity!). Not only that, there's a lot of people (at least 15) who are individually threatening to sue Wikipedia. So even if this is just a joke (which seems somewhat unlikely to me), the reality is that wikipedia is going to be sued in the future. Whether that's class action or just regular individual law suits I don't know. But this does need to be included to aid in discussion. If we wipe this, how can Wikipedia hope to answer the law suits? Wiping this could mean the end to Wikipedia. I know, that's all doomsday-ish of me, but you know, it might. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:58, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Class_Action&oldid=1138722832"