Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users

 * See also: and .
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Title too cumbersome. (Note that AfD guidelines advocate review of related titles in tandem, when possible; and if one generalizes the Internet component of this list-type/quasi list-type article and focusing its conduct component, one gets the recently-listed-at-AfD title Internet killer and there is appreciable overlap between the two articles' subject matter. "Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users" is a compound list, containing issues involving the practices of the website along with a compendium of the crimes commited by parties using the website, whereas the defining rationale of the article Internet killer is a better focus and with therefore more inciseful brevity in its title.)  ↜Just me, here, now …  05:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please clarify your reasons for nominating this article for deletion? Cumbersome article titles can be easily fixed by renaming the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point's exactly mine, Nick-D. The Internet killer article, an omnibus for Internet-related murderers, was already in existence when a user listed it for deletion. Which would be fine except then this same user then created this article, whose content overlaps with the article he'd listed for deletion. If the content of an existing article is encyclopedic, the article should be at most renamed, not deleted, no?  ↜Just me, here, now … 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact isn't one purpose of the anti-fork rule to guard against just this type of three card monte?  ↜Just me, here, now … 08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion provided by nominator.  This article has been existence for years as a subsection in Craigslist called Craigslist and was recently split out into its own article.  The content has not changed at all.   The current article is supported by the community (see for example Articles for deletion/List of Craigslist killers). The other article, Internet killer, was recently created and is 100% original research; Not a single reliable source exists to support it. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas's coin -- eg "supported by the community," "entirely," "not a single," &c -- is wildly inflated in value. Makings for a Greenspan bubble?  ↜Just me, here, now … 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has existed for years as a subsection of Craigslist and is supported by the community per the above linked debate. The least you could do is actually try to provide a deletion rationale.  I have faith you can come up with one if you try hard enough.  Put some effort into it. Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:Fork . [Edited: WP:CFORK.] Every article's section can stand alone as an article in its own right without review? Really? I'm sorry -- I missed that at the WP:Help "getting started" link. If somebody creates the article Obama family, I can nominate it for deletion, then go to the Barack Obama article and cut'n'paste its "Family" section, then create my own article? Why, because the creator of the original "Obama Family" article is lame and I'm not? Text book WP:Fork ! (An aside to Viriditas): How's that...? {smiles}  ↜Just me, here, now … 11:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops -- WP:CFORK.  ↜Just me, here, now … 12:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, please familiar yourself with Splitting. Nothing has been "forked".  It's not a content fork.  Look, do you understand that the content in this article has been around before Internet killer and has nothing to do with that article? The article was split out recently, but that has nothing to do with its content. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A content fork is an, I quote, creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject, the end of quote. Since the article you'd nominated for deletion with the same info already existed, the article you then created with duplicate information was a content fork. An oversight. (...However ya DID ping my talkpage with the message that you're one step ahead of the supporters of the existing article -- so, I should, "Watch and learn" And maybe you're right about that? that is, that we'll find out true application and meaning of the content forking policy here through the review process? One can hope.)  ↜Just me, here, now … 12:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No content fork has occurred. Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users was split from Craigslist.  It has nothing to do with Internet killer, a new article that is on AfD because it is composed of 100% original research.  I believe I have already explained this to you several times.  If you still don't understand what you are reading, please ask someone to explain it to you.  Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are making a bad faith deletion rationale. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge notable content to Craigslist. This will cut out the content fork but keep the important information. Malinaccier (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge notable content to Craigslist: This "three card monte" mess deserves to be unscrabled and cleaned up soon . My suggestion is to fold the material about lawsuits by and against Craigslist back into the Craigslist article and to link the several (six so far) homicides commited via the modus operandi of Craigslist advertisements to the Internet homicide article, which, rather lamely, Viriditas has put on AfD (but that's another issue...). cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Viriditas put Internet killer up for AFD, which was not lame at all, as it made unsourced claims that the term was a journalistic term, along with other original research. That article has since been renamed to internet homicide and sources provided supporting the phenomenon, along with other improvements, so hopefully a positive outcome there. -- M P er el  20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the new sources added to internet homicide. They don't support the subject and the sources are being misused to claim that they do.  Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is simply an expanded subsection that outgrew its parent article so that standard Summary style was implemented. This nomination appears to be a reaction to other current AFD proposals to delete recent new articles that duplicate the same material in a more novel synthesis/original research way: List of Craigslist killers and Internet killer. -- M P er el  18:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete textbook POV fork which has an insurmountable NPOV problem because its title discourages any discussion about any good aspects of the website. It is literally impossible that there is any subject for which there is entirely a negative point of view, not even Satan or (hello, Mike!) Adolf Hitler. As such, this violates UNDUE for giving an article solely dedicated to the negative. Sceptre (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please actually read WP:POVFORK, Sceptre. The article was spun out as a subtopic and all it needs is a summary style paragraph.  I hardly think that a random, 13 bullet point section is acceptable in any article.  Care to show me a GA-class Doctor Who article that has one?  You can't.  There's no requirement for a large list to be placed in any article.  In fact, most lists like this end up tacked into the see also section as a link. If you plan on converting it to prose, then by all means, have at it, but right now it is a random list of incidents that doesn't really fit any article and deserves to standalone. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Don't pull the "summary style" argument. I know full well what a POV fork is, and this is one. That only applies when a section is too large enough to be in an article. This is not large enough. Prose wise, it's about the same size as the "Description" and "Background" sections. The main article only has 6KB of prose, way below the "may need to be divided" rule of WP:SIZERULE. The correct way to deal with this content is to minimise it and talk about it in prose, not spin it out into another article to put it away from the other content; that is the very definition of POV fork (or one of them). Sceptre (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't the only requirement. The bulleted list was out of proportion to the rest of the article and per Splitting it was spun out into a stand alone list.  All within policy and nothing POV or forkish about it. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Way out of proportion"? It had the same amount of content as the other two sections! Hell, I could argue it's more out of proportion now seeing as you've cut and pasted it into a new article. Sceptre (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Viriditas. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge all 3 articles into one Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users or Craigslist killers or such. Notable, not just one news item, not just one incident.  Plenty of news sources are out there to show notability. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I believe the editor who cut content from "Craigslist" to paste here, parallel to "List of Craigslist killers," would have done better to suggest a page move and bit of expansion of scope at List of Craigslist killers -- would supporters of the iteration in this title be satisfied, say, if the closing administrator belatedly moved on of the other two articles' contents/history here?  ↜Just me, here, now … 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to one of the Craig's list articles which is WP:N. I am an uninvolved editor in all three articles in discussion at AFD's and there seems to be a lot POV going on and WP:Synthesis and WP:OR happening in some.  The AFD's I have looked at so far it seems the same editors are debating the same thing on all three AFD's.  Craigs's list would have no problems with WP:RS either since it has been well publised in the media.  Just my opinion of course, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and do not merge. However, some thought should go into the name and focus of the article.  The Craigslist article, as is, is self contained and there is easily enough information to make a full, long article.  The subject of crimes that use Craigslit as a modality or medium of communication is notable on its own.  This might have once been called merely a media sensation to stir public unease at a new social technology - there is no particular nexus other than some tabloid journalism.  Why, for instance, no "crime on the phone" article, "crime via Fedex" or "crime in hotel lobbies" article?  And indeed there isn't much to distinguish Craigslit from Facebook, Myspace, Beebo, Twitter, or any other web service.  However, the media sensation has a life of its own, and has caused law enforcement and craigslist personnel to meet directly and make arrangements.  So the subject of Craigslist's response to crime is distinct and notable.  For example, we have a Hotel Detective article and presumably could have a "hotel security" article because that is a subject - it would make no sense to merge that into Hotel.  The question of illegal activities (and their public perception and response) is a distinct subject very different than Craigslist as a company, site, and web service.  I don't think we could give it good treatment within the main Craigslist article without it having undue weight there, and creating a misleading focus to suggest that the crimes there are a significant issue that sets it apart from other services.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2009 (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.