Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chia Hong v. Facebook


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Chia Hong v. Facebook

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, lawsuit was just filed, individual is not notable enough for their own article either. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/Userfy WP:TOOSOON to know if any lasting impact to warrant notability.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 07:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not delete for now. While it needs work, the article does not violate WP:GNG.  This lawsuit is significant, just by its existence.  How that should be reflected in Wikipedia is a broader issue.  This suit, the Ellen Pao suit, and the Tina Huang suit against Twitter - also quite recently filed - are all part of a notable emerging trend of women who have come forward to challenge what they - and many observers - see as a "boys' club" atmosphere in many Silicon Valley companies.  Some of these lawsuits (Pao's was not) are being brought as class actions, which adds to their notability.  This emerging trend has drawn commentary nationally, see for example note in Fortune magazine (http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/facebook-sex-discrimination/) and even from as far afield as the London press.  What is probably needed is a single article that discusses this trend, provides cites to these lawsuits, and provides cites to the wide and interesting range of comments that they have elicited.  A number of scholars of gender discrimination in employment have seen these lawsuits as drawing attention to a real and important problem of bias in some very prominent high tech companies and the VC's who invest in them.  --Pechmerle (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. For all the reasons explained by and in anticipation of being able to merge with the other lawsuits.  I'll be able to add to the references and add content based upon the references already provided. Best Regards,   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per nom and per Hisashiyarouin, without prejudice to recreation down the road if new sources and developments merit. It's because of articles like these that we have WP:NOTNEWS and expect WP:LASTING coverage of a topic. At this stage we accomplish little more than creating an echo chamber for the allegations, without any indication of their substance or likelihood of surviving even preliminary legal proceedings. Most lawsuits, even those that get some initial press and/or are against prominent companies, do not ultimately satisfy GNG, so there's no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt unlike with some other current events. And no, Pechmerle, whether a lawsuit is a class action (not that this lawsuit is, anyway) has nothing to do with whether it merits an article. Whether the lawsuit might merit a mention within another article, however, is a separate question (though don't forget WP:UNDUE). postdlf (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. There should also be a place for Huang v. Twitter. These cases are getting and going to keep getting significant coverage, like Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. Let a little time pass and then decide whether best for them stand alone as separate articles. Or merge into Sexism in the technology industry. Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the two cases associated with Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, this one filed by counsel in that case, Lawless & Lawless. The extent of press coverage remains uncertain, however, and it make take a year or more to come to trial if it is not settled. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; kikichugirl  oh hello! 05:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG., what part of GNG do you think this fails?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the only reference currently is a copy of the filing hosted on scribd, a Google search reveals a few, brief news articles about the filing. The person is question is not notable enough to stand on their own either. Please explain how this passes WP:GNG. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Commen: The problem with covering lawsuits as they happen, is that at the lawsuit's onset, most of the source material is focused on the accusations, which often turn out to be bogus, misleading, trivial, legal harassment or even hoaxes in retrospect. The finger in Wendy's chili is a good example, where our article would have had gross errors and far from NPOV at the onset, and could only possibly be correct after courts, experts, the public, press, etc. get the facts right themselves. For now, while covering recent events like this is discouraged it is allowed and I'm not sure I see a good common sense reason Wikipedia would benefit from removing it. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting -- your comment relies on  the following  assumptions:
 * 1. Causes of Action often turn out to be bogus
 * 2. A report of a court filing cannot be evaluated WP:NPOV before it goes to trial
 * Can you please tell us:
 * 1. How you determine that Causes of Action are often bogus — are you relying on unbiased information? If so can you link to an article on Wikipedia that supports your assertion?
 * 2. At what point should a wiki-article be started:
 * Before the trial starts and if so when?
 * When the trial is underway?
 * After closing arguments have been reported?
 * After the judge/jury make a decision?
 * Not before the Supreme court renders a decision?
 * Else? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They actually do often turn out to be bogus. Millions of such lawsuits are filed every year. Even if that were not the case, a filed lawsuit only contains the POV of the filer, and it's therefore a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * A wikipedia article should be started when the case is notable. It isn't. Facebook is notable, and this article is only mentioned anywhere outside of court schedules because of Facebook's notability. When the case is concluded, it may be noteworthy enough to include in Criticism of Facebook. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * a filed lawsuit only contains the POV of the filer, and it's therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Goodness gracious, no! That is absolutely not how NPOV works. The neutral point of view is always and only determined with regard to the published sources, not with regard to the subject matter itself. From WP:NPOV's intro: NPOV [...] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. --89.0.225.182 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lawsuit isn't a reliable source for information on Facebook, which is how it was being used in the article. And per your quoting of NPOV's intro, this article has no information on Facebook's response to these claims, which is a violation of WP:NPOV and the sentence you quoted. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  02:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * this article has no information on Facebook's response to these claims -- The article doesn't need any mention of Facebook's response in order to be perfectly NPOV -- unless Facebook's response is covered in published sources. If it isn't, too bad for Facebook, but absolutely not a violation of NPOV. --89.0.225.182 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except it is covered in published sources, which you would know if you had looked. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  02:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except it is covered in published sources, which you would know if you had looked. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  02:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Simple case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:GNG either, as there are no sources independent of the subject. All claims attributed to sources are only included in those sources quoting Chia Hong or Chia Hong's complaints. Since that sentence is somewhat convoluted and I can't think of a better way to word it, allow me to provide an example (albeit an absurd one): Jack Johnson files a lawsuit against the US government alleging that lizard people invaded his mind on the orders of President Obama. I'm sure we can agree reliable sources would have an article or two on that case. The case would easily make WP:GNG based on the arguments above, should we have an article on that too? &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  00:41, 14 April 2015 (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.