Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMP v. Persons Unknown


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AMP v. Persons Unknown

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not seeing enough sources to establish this case as notable other than a news story. I've deleted a number of revisions and blocked an IP who seemed deadset on revealing her name (which is not revealed in any news sources). OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep  This incident has been covered by major newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph, the Independent and the Daily Mail (see talk page of the article for all the sources). Which makes it notable enough. It is also probably the first British online privacy case that involved BitTorrent, this is what makes this case unique. The previous such cases were mostly related to Twitter and websites, such the case of Ryan Giggs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachursharma (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not every court case meets WP:GNG because it was in the newspapers. Some media coverage, but not enough for a standalone article at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not an ordinary news story, but an interesting and unique legal case discussing (among other things) the press freedom against the rights of individuals in the Internet age. For possible sources see The Register, The Telegraph Mail Online The Independent. The content is verifiable and I don't see any benefits for Wikipedia in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a press freedom case. Although it has picked up some media coverage, there are WP:GNG issues. It would be better to merge the information into an existing article, but not 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy as the elements of theft, blackmail and harassment are not present here. Also, please note that some people in the blogs are obsessed with revealing the name of the woman allegedly involved, which has WP:BLPNAME issues. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part of the WP:GNG are you referring to? I see multiple reliable sources informing about the case independently. You might point to WP:BLP1E, but I don't think it applies here, as the circumstances of this case are rather unique (read the above mentioned article by The Register). Wikipedia has various procedures of dealing with WP:BLP issues (article protection, REVDEL etc.), but it is not a subject of this AfD discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The chances of this article progressing beyond stub class on the current sourcing are slim. Most of the reliable coverage comes from one day's newspapers, and there is no coverage on the BBC or CNN website to back up the "landmark case" claim being made. It was an interesting High Court case, but would need more than the fairly limited coverage it has received so far to justify a full article. I am still thinking about the best place for this to go. The Pirate Bay initially seemed like a good idea, but since the sourcing simply mentions "a Swedish file-sharing website" and does not say which one, it was ruled out. Please also note that the DMCA takedown request at Chilling Effects cannot be used as a source for AMP v. Persons Unknown, because it does not say that the woman involved is AMP and it would be original research to infer this. People are using this DMCA takedown to reveal the woman's alleged name, but apart from the WP:BLPNAME issue, it does not link directly to any of the coverage in the reliable sources and is a form of WP:BLPPRIMARY.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC and Guardian websites did not cover this case, and the only really good coverage is in the Telegraph and Independent, which has been picked up elsewhere. Comments from blogs, law firm websites etc have WP:SPS issues. I am not in favour of banning this material altogether, but do not believe that a standalone article is ideal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG don't mention that our topics must be covered by BBC, CNN or Guardian. The Register (which covered the case independently) is not an unimportant blog, but a very influential web with large readership. They wrote that "...the legal battle took three years...". I don't think this is one day's topic. It reminds me of the cases of Stacy Snyder and Andrew Feldmar and maybe others. I can imagine an article on legal cases regarding privacy rights and the Internet, even though the background and circumstances are different for each case. However, we don't have the article and the fact that there's no place where to merge the information doesn't mean we should delete it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Expanded the article and gave it some detail. This is not about press censorship or naming the woman, it is the legal aspects that create the notability.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Ian. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.