Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist ad controversy


 * 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   Merge and redirect. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Craigslist ad controversy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This event doesn't seem to have sufficiently widespread notability to me -- although the article claims multiple reliable sources, only one is cited (a column at SFgate.com). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've updated the page with more sources now.-- Urban  Rose  20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Internet privacy Sceptre (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Internet privacy. This really has all the attention it needs. Publishing e-mail and outing people is gauche, but not illegal. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per other arguments ... if this is all the article we're going to see, then it can be a section or subsection in the larger article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; no point in merging; the section in internet privacy is already longer than the incident warrants. -- Vary | Talk 23:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This incident is unnotable, and this article's title could be about a hundred of other things involving the misuse of Craigslist (people who post vindictive personal ads against their exes, houses that are ransacked based on ads placed by others about 'rummage sales', car/computer sale cashiers check ripoffs, 419s...I could go on). The ED mention is also unnwarranted.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge There have been many controversies related to ads on Craigslist, such as false ads for free stuff, scams, Fair Housing violations, prostitution ads, and this controversy here. I'm not certain this one is especially notable. In fact, when I saw this article title, I was unaware of which specific controversy the article referred to. Titling this article as Craigslist ad controversy as if it is the only one is akin to writing an article about American political scandal and leaving it unclear as to whether the article is about Watergate, Teapot Dome, Monica Lewinsky, or any of the other political scandals in American history. Eauhomme (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject is already covered elsewhere, and calling this a "Craigslist ad controversy" is misleading. The controversy was not over the Craigslist ad as such, but what the ad-placer did with the responses he received, which he posted to Encyclopedia Dramatica -- not to Craigslist. Meanwhile, there are other actual Craigslist ad controversies such as the use of that site to promote prostitution. As a second choice, redirect to Craigslist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete- first checking if there's anything useful that could be included in Craigslist as Metro says. This is not worth having as a redirect as no-one will search for this title. Merkin's  mum 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable event, worldwide extensive media coverage there isn't a lack of sources, it's just a matter of finding them.--Sinister beard man (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — Sinister beard man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * http://www.nu.nl/news/822915/56/Man_publiceert_reacties_sm-advertentie_op_internet.html (Dutch)
 * http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1455603.ece (Norwegian)
 * http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/tech/0,1518,436372,00.html (German)
 * http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/23/23544/1.html (German)
 * http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/buzz/archives/106668.asp
 * http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2006/09/09/craigslist_sexbait_leaves_men_exposed.html
 * http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/news/northwest/story/6090938p-5339562c.html
 * http://men.style.com/details/features/full/?id=content_5288&pageNum=2
 * http://money.cnn.com/blogs/browser/2006/09/craigslist-shaken-by-sex-scandals.html
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/5335054.stm
 * http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/284734_robert12x.html
 * http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003255494_craigad13.html
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1984715.cms
 * http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/09/12/concerns_raised_over_web_sex_ad_replies/
 * http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8K31NTO0&show_article=1
 * http://www.commercial-news.com/statenews/cnhinsall_story_269110109.html
 * http://www.dailysoutherner.com/editorials/local_story_271111452.html
 * http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5df88c66-4279-11db-8dc3-0000779e2340.html
 * http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1157978123272
 * http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&task=view&id=14516&Itemid=9
 * http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20061002_133913_133913
 * http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=19498
 * http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=9652
 * http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6114909-7.html
 * http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4936&page=0
 * http://www.orangeleader.com/opinion/cnhinseditorials_story_269110109.html?keyword=topstory
 * http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/SavageLove?oid=66991&category=22115
 * http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06260/721181-96.stm
 * http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/projo_20060918_ctjamie.322dcff.html
 * http://www.register-news.com/opinion/local_story_266041816.html
 * http://www.theage.com.au/news/Technology/Legal-and-ethical-concerns-raised-over-exposing-replies-to-sex-ad/2006/09/12/1157826912446.html
 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/11/fortuny_craigslist_sex_prank/
 * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570701,00.html
 * http://www.tribstar.com/news_network/cnhinsall_story_269110109.html
 * http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2006-09-11-sex-ad-privacy_x.htm?csp=34
 * None of the above sources are currently used in the article, also it shows it has had substantial media coverage globally. Some of the articles have been published some time after the event showing that it has had a lasting effect. The event is also commonly referred to in another articles related to internet privacy. It has been documented extensively over a long period of time making it a historic event. The article event is too significant to merge, and if all the sources were used it would also be too large. A more suitable title for this may be The Craigslist experiment.--Sinister beard man (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — Sinister beard man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - all these sources have no bearing on whether this article, under this name, should be kept; the incident already has all the coverage it needs at Internet privacy. Also, please stop removing the SPA (single purpose account) tags I placed after your username.  You have five edits, four of which are to this AFD and your account was created 6 minutes before coming straight to AFD to argue "keep". KleenupKrew (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was nominated because it didn't have enough sources, this has now been fixed.--Sinister beard man (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is one single event of unclear notability, with nothing to indicate why it of all things should have its own article titled "Craigslist ad controversy". Any important ad controversies can and should be included in the main Craigslist article in any case.  KleenupKrew (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, the entry Internet privacy provides adequate coverage for a one-time event of questionable notability. A short reference to that material from within the Craigslist article would be appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is in fact nothing to merge. The article is just a copy-and-paste of the Internet Privacy article's section on the incident (with no note to that effect, in violation of the GFDL).  See also the concerns of other editors that this nn event be deemed the Craigslist ad controversy. -- Vary | Talk 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see nothing new that isn't already covered in the Internet Privacy article. Nothing warrants a split-out for such a small quantity of information. It's best left rolled in at Internet Privacy. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Craigslist, since there are more controversies about Craiglist ads than this one. Information is a duplication from existing articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are many craigslist scams and "controversies," this is not significantly different from any of them. User Enric Naval has good points.(Community editor (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. no indication this is notable enough to warrant its own article. Eusebeus (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Urban Rose. William Ortiz (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Internet privacy, where the information can be better and more succinctly handled.-- danntm T C 20:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete seems the best course here; it's already covered in the proposed merge target and this is essentially an end-run around the deletion of Jason Fortuny, after all. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If an article named Jason Fortuny was the contents of this one, it would be a WP:COATRACK and need to be renamed. William Ortiz (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into internet privacy per above. Hohohahaha (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Is basically just a cutpaste of a section of Internet privacy so I don't know if it needs to exist as a separate article after all. Sinister Beard Man, feel free to add those sources to Internet privacy.-- Urban  Rose  15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. If this article is to be kept, it must be under a less-generic name as there seem to be various online "controversies" on a regular basis. A mention of this in Internet privacy should be sufficient... but no more per WP:WEIGHT. Incorporate mention and appropriate sources into Internet privacy and delete the rest. B.Wind (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: Per above delete votes. It is not notable to have its own article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2008 (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.