Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pincus v. Yahoo! Inc.

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 redirect to Criticism of Yahoo!. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pincus v. Yahoo! Inc.

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT (specifically WP:ROUTINE). This is yet another class action lawsuit. If there's a scandal about Yahoo! ad targeting, then maybe write about the scandal.

Also WP:XBALL likely applies: This is a federal class action suit that was filed on November 15th. There hasn't even been a reply by Yahoo!, let alone a 12(b)(6) motion yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* Not notable enough of a law suit. There are literally hundreds of law suits filed a day. If anything we need an article for those ambulance chaser class action commercials. It would at least be a high traffic page from people googling them. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Yahoo! or delete. If it turns out to have lasting significance, it can always be documented there. Otherwise, it should probably just be deleted. I agree with the nom that this article trips several red flags, including WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not crazy about redirecting to that target, but mostly because of gripes I have with that article being a POV-forky, coatracky, news aggregator-like laundry list of negative media stories about Yahoo. However, I also think that this as a redirect would meet WP:R#D4 and WP:R#D10. I don't think WP:R#K1 would apply here because of just how little content there is in the article at present. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Yahoo! --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Yahoo! --BiH (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Yahoo! litigation. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Do not redirect; the case at present is not sufficiently notable to be discussed in either of the proposed target articles; it's not discussed in them, nor should it be, at the present time. A Wikipedia user searching on this would be better served by getting a not-found message than being redirected to an article that does not discuss it. TJRC (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Yahoo!. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: can those proposing a redirect explain the value they perceive in redirecting to an article that does not discuss the subject? WP:Redirects are cheap, of course, but if the redirect has no value (indeed a negative value, in that it misleadingly suggests to a reader that the target has something to do with what they searched for or clicked on), it's not a matter of whether it's cheap, it's whether it's helpful or the opposite. TJRC (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, as I commented above, this is a problem. I think it's in part a matter of the standard outcome for an AfD where there's an even plausible redirect target because edit histories are presumed to be valuable. While I concede that the edit history might be valuable if this case eventually has lasting significance, I dispute that this is a reason to keep the redirect (see WP:XBALL) and furthermore disagree that Criticism of Yahoo! is an appropriate target. As to whether Yahoo! litigation is appropriate, I agree with TJRC that it is not because it contains no mention of this litigation, and indeed should not per WP:UNDUE; that is, a merge would be inappropriate there as well. Finally, though perhaps out of the scope of this discussion, both Criticism of Yahoo! and Yahoo! litigation are themselves problematic and possibly meriting of merging/redirecting elsewhere themselves. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, to the Criticism or the Litigation article. That will save any article history. We almost never keep articles about recently filed lawsuits, which are very common, and earlier in my life, I contributed mightily to the flood of paper in our nation's courts. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be pure coincidence, but the nominator here is also involved/nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Yu/other articles that I created which are currently in wp:AFD. XOttawahitech (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because most of the articles you create have no place on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I can't say anything more than what has already been said above. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2014 (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.