Jump to content

Talk:Lane v. Facebook, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prod concern

[edit]

For the page to exist, it needs to be what wikipedia considers "notable". Notability on wikipedia is reflected in coverage by what wikipedia calls "reliable sources" -- basically, higher-level media (newspapers, books, magazines that have high reputations for accuracy and reliability). In the absence of such coverage, non-notable articles are deleted. In this case, not only did I not see references (footnotes) reflecting such third party coverage by reliable sources, but when I searched separately I did not see it either. Let me know if you have more questions. In the meantime, the original editor of this article might check wp:notability and wp:rs. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the PROD. This case has gotten substantial coverage (see [1] and [2] for just a couple examples), well beyong the WP:NOTNEWS level.
In addition, please don't use WP:SPEEDY criteria such as "A7" on non-speedy deletion requests. If you want to do a Speedy, do a Speedy, don't conflate the two processes. For that matter A7 does not apply to an article about a lawsuit; it applies only to articles about individuals, animals, organizations, and web content. A Speedy claiming A7 here would have been declined.
The article needs a boatload of cleanup, I grant you, but it meets notability requirements. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've rarely prodded articles, so apologies if I missed some of the procedural niceties. I do think the article still lacks indicia of notability. Two article -- one of which is not from what I can see clearly an RS -- falls short of the notability requirement in the guideline. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't the only 2, they're just examples. I assume the one you think is not an RS is the Huffington Post one, but if you look at it, you'll see it has a further link to the L.A. Times, which unquestionably is an RS. TJRC (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, some further sources (not to beat a dead horse, more for anyone who wants to help fix up the article): [3] (WaPo); [4] (Wired); [5] (a blog; use with caution); and the book The Facebook effect : the inside story of the company that is connecting the world, ISBN 9781439102114 , page 248. TJRC (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Perhaps you are seeing more coverage than I am seeing here and here, but I've not noticed the substantial level of coverage necessary to meet our notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does a substantial amount of coverage mean? Is this a substantial amount? [6] -karthik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik Jagadeesh (talk • contribs) October 22, 2010
That doesn't seem to be a very helpful search. Looks like about half are false positives, and many are not particularly reliable sources. But the several articles and book I cited above, I think, make the case for notability. Epeefleche, if you are limiting your search to news searches, it will probably not be as fruitful. TJRC (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not yet convinced it is notable. But rather than AfD it at the moment, I'll wait a few days and see if further evidence of substantial coverage surfaces (e.g., a number of RSs covering the matter in articles).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

I would suggest that the infobox be changed or removed, as it is for a court of appeals case, which this is not.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed this to a District Court infobox. ToastIsTasty (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Coming Soon

[edit]

Hi,

This page is part of the IP Law WikiProject and also part of the Wikimedia Foundation's pilot project on United States Public Policy. This initial draft was just due and follow-on reviewers will be improving the article over the next two weeks or so. If we can hold off on deletion, I think the concerns expressed can be addressed soon. Brianwc (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great (that the article will be improved). What do you mean when you write that "This initial draft was just due"? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been cleaned up with: chronological order; Inline references to primary sources; Secondary sources from major news outlets; Discussion of specific laws as they apply to the case; Tense and style cleanup; Removal of unimportant material (approval of plaintiffs for class action) ToastIsTasty (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

Once it gets a little cleanup, and one of the secondary sources is cited to clear up any remaining notability concerns (although it's pretty clear to me that it's notable), this article should be eligible for appearing on the main page as a "Did you know" entry, if it is nominated it soon; it is supposed to be nominated within 5 days of being created or significantly (5x) expanded.

The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know. Basically, all you need to do is take this code: 

{{NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=  }}

and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation. Someone will double-check to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say.

Once you've come up with a hook, fill in your username as the author and fill the title of the article, then add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of the appropriate section for the day the article was started on the DYK template talk page. The code will produce an entry formatted like the others. After that, just keep an eye on the entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it. I'll keep an eye out as well. If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of the above, save my continued question as to whether there is really sufficient third-party coverage of this in RSs to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. But as I've said below, I've determined not to nominate this article for AfD at this point, to allow further evidence of such third-party coverage to surface. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that this may be part of a school project, so rather than AfD it at the moment (and not saying that I ever will), I'll give it more time to come up to snuff on reflecting the necessary coverage to reflect notability. I gather effort is being made in that regard. Good luck.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche, please review some of the references I've included and cited inline. Thanks for your time. ToastIsTasty (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible for you to put them in standard wikipedia format, per Wikipedia:Citing sources? That would make it easier for me and others to review. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I now think it is in fact notable (so I will not nominate it for deletion). At the same time, I think it needs a lot of careful clean-up, both to accord with wikipedia editing manual of style issues, and simple proofreading (e.g., the first paragraph refers to "$9.5 million dollar" ... either the dollar sign or the word dollar should be dropped). Best, and good luck.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

[edit]

We did a class exercise in which students looked at this article and gave feedback on good things as well as things to improve. These included:

  • Well organized, claims section especially, good summary
  • Some good citations
  • Links to .pdf's are broken, could use more detail to locate sources elsewhere
  • Not enough primary sources, e.g. court documents
  • Claims section could use more diversity in citations, or state the source at the beginning, rather than cite each paragraph

Dcoetzee 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Links 9, 10, and 11 are dead... can anyone find a similar link? The info would be very helpful 205.197.253.4 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Fund for privacy and security

[edit]

The "$9.5 million fund for privacy and security" that is cited should have a link to this reference. Also, the links that could help in that are dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.185.179 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marek v. Lane

[edit]

I'm just wondering if something about Marek v. Lane, a followup case to Lane v. Facebook challenging its outcome, should be added to this page. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiravae (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think it's worth adding. If anyone else wants to get to it before me, in addition to the New York Times article linked to above, the Ninth Circuit opinion (including Kleinfield's dissent) is here and an apparent copy of apparent certiorari petition is here, another copy here; the Supreme Court docket entry is here. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cert. denied in Marek v. Lane. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a statement about the denial here, which includes a good overview of the lawsuit, the structure of the settlement, and criticism of its terms. BTW, Marek v. Lane should not be characterized as a "followup case", but rather a later stage in the same overall lawsuit focused on an objection to the settlement. Don't let the change in caption (i.e., the identified parties) confuse you; the lower court opinion for which review was being sought in the Supreme Court was Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F. 3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012). postdlf (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lane v. Facebook, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lane_v._Facebook,_Inc.&oldid=1208090714"