Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In re Gateway Learning Corp.


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In re Gateway Learning Corp.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Tried prodding it, but the noob who wrote this POS removed the tag. Clearly shouldn't be here. Written like a news article - see WP:NOT, section 5. No indication of notability of corporation in question. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - In FTC land, a consent decree has the effect of precedent. No company has ever challenged one.  So, when a company like Gateway agrees to this type of order, it creates internet-wide regulation in the US.  Prior to this case, many prominent companies changed their privacy policies to the detriment of consumers, often without telling them.  This case means that if you do that, the data collected under the old privacy policy must be segmented and treated differently, unless you can get your consumers to affirmatively consent to the new uses. Choofnagle (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) choofnagle 13 April 2010


 * Comment - the case is notable even if the company is not, but the article needs to be retitled something like FTC settlement with Gateway Learning and rewritten to draw from (at least) the many GNews hits for and remove all the original research and synthesis  --CliffC (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep - "In re Gateway Learning Corp" is the name of the case; you may be confused because it doesn't take the form "X v Y" but nevertheless this is the case name. Established precedent is articles about legal cases should be titled with the short form name of the case (see Pepper v Hart, Roe v Wade), which is what has been done here.  The information within is an appropriate summary of the background of the case and its ramifications, and for the most part is appropriately cited to reliable sources.  Notability for the case isn't established within the article, sadly, but see Consumer Law Protection Developments (Horvath & ors, 2009).  Significant coverage in reliable independent sources also here, here and here.  This appears to merely be a matter of the nominator being unfamiliar with the subject area; try checking with WP:LAW in future before calling an article a POS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The full stop at the end of the name can probably afford to go though. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, then move to move discussion. This establishes notability through it's sources, but a rename would be legitimate, although not default.  A move debate should take place. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This does not appear to be a legal case that resulted in a published legal opinion of the sort that usually counts as a significant legal precedent in the US legal tradition; it has no real value as case law that I can see.  The case was apparently settled.  The only source that isn't pleadings in the case or FTC press releases is a Seton Hall Law Journal article, and it's unclear to what extent that particular law journal article is about this case.  I'm uncertain that this case has enough value as precedent to justify airing some business's dirty laundry at such length. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources I cited in my comment above aren't pleadings or FTC press releases; there's three online and one hardcopy and they all constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I saw more while browsing, too, but I figured four should be enough for the sake of this argument. I also found a number of citations of it in later judgements so clearly it has some value as case law, although I can't claim to have read on to see in what context it was being cited. In addition, as the article says, it has value as an insight into FTC policy and under what circumstances the FTC might bring actions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would note that some of those sources would appear to be blogs, although some blogs are better than others, and there probably are blogs run as news feeds by lawyers with a particular interest in a practice like FTC regulatory law that may well pass muster as reliable sources. Then again, some of those listings put this particular case in the context of similar regulatory actions against other businesses.  I suppose it doesn't really matter whether it's fair to single out this particular business getting called onto the carpet because of its privacy practices, so long as the information is sourceable, although there may be a problem with WP:UNDUE. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - not exactly Supreme Court of the United States, but it is a good enough stub. It can be sourced better, per DustFormsWords. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2010 (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.