Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAS Institute lawsuit with World Programming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SAS Institute lawsuit with World Programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded without comment by IP. Rationale was Overly specific title, no sources, dubious notability. Most lawsuits do not warrant articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An article about litigation like this is at least potentially suspect of axegrinding and promotion. This gives that impression strongly; the point of the article apparently is to announce that one litigant's software has been judged not to infringe the other's copyright. The article does seem to indicate that a ruling has been made by an appellate court, but doesn't say that it was a published decision. The article says that the ruling was discussed in trade related circles, but doesn't establish that it is a precedent with lasting significance in the development of European copyright law. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: This article is in need of improvement but should not be deleted. SAS.v.WPL will be fundamental to European software copyright law and someone who really understands what is going on should write this up for future reference. There are several good articles on the websites of law firms, both those involved in the case and those that are not, but these are volatile and may disappear in a year or so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelmany9999 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is User:Modelmany9999's first, and so far only, edit. JIP | Talk 04:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; needs to be cleaned up and renamed (e.g., to SAS Institute v. World Programming), but it's a substantial case that is very much talked about in IP circles, the first that actually takes on whether a programming language syntax is subject to copyright. Some coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. TJRC (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; it actually was not deprodded without comment by the IP. Before the IP deprodded, he added an explanation on the article's talk page (which he expanded on the next day). It wasn't a lengthy discussion, but it was enough to make clear that his reason for deprodding was not arbitrary. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the ip's discussion on the article talk p. and TJRC's discussion. Individual law cases with major commercial impact are notable, as are those with major legal impact. As for promotionalism, I don't see how one can write an article on a lawsuit without giving the result. the article doesn't just "indicate" that there's been an appellate judgement in a court of international jurisdiction, but proves it by actually quoting it. The article, however, could be a little clearer, and more exactly indicate the quotations from the judgments. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.