The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• ... that according to Craigslist v. 3Taps, it may be illegal to screen scrape a website over the owner's objections?

Created by Wh-237 (talk). Nominated by Colinpmacarthur (talk) at 06:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

• The article is new enough (moved from sandbox), long enough, neutral, and well-referenced. The hook is short and I think it's interesting, but I don't think the hook's content is stated directly within the article, nor do I think it is sufficiently cited within the article. Would you be able to provide an alternative hook? -- クラウド６６８ 04:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks. I've revised the hook:
• ALT1: ... that in Craigslist v. 3Taps, Craigslist sued PadMapper for screen scraping Craigslist listings? Colinpmacarthur (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• ALT1 hook is okay; I made a few changes to the hook to fix typos. I am not sure if it's your intention to leave 3Taps out of the hook. I think it would make more sense to include it too, but I'll leave that to your discretion. -- クラウド６６８ 18:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)