Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of litigation involving the Electronic Frontier Foundation


 * 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. There was consensus that this is a valid topic for a list. However, there was also consensus that the list is too inclusive - even that some items do not belong at all. After trimming the list to some criteria it is likely to be much shorter. What those criteria should be and whether the list is then short enough to be merged back in to the main article can be dealt with by ordinary editing. SpinningSpark 18:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

List of litigation involving the Electronic Frontier Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Just a list of mostly non-notable court cases. Too irrelevant to bother with a merge. There is no precedent of such a list, as it violates WP:IINFO Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, problematic, because as comments, there is no precedent. But the issues are (1) getting involved in litigation is a major purpose of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (which is notable and has an article), and (2) 75 of these cases have been deemed notable enough to have their own articles, but (3) the current list is misleading because on my cursory check of some items in the list, often the EFF isn't mentioned as "involved" in any formal sense, it's just expressed an opinion on the case.
 * The nearest analogy I can think of is a film actor, whose output is films. We would normally list their films, either on the main article about the actor, if there are not too many, or we'd break out onto a separate list if the list becomes too long (e.g. Patrick_Stewart_on_stage_and_screen). Because the current list is malformed and over-inclusive, my feeling is delete the list, and merge very selectively any genuine cases in which the EFF played an active role into a sort of "caseography" section added to Electronic_Frontier_Foundation. There is no point in listing every case in which they've been "involved" in the sense of issuing some statement or having an opinion, because it's their job to have an opinion on every such case. Elemimele (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology,  and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 17:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Enough blue links to make it a valid list. Is every single litigation involving them notable enough to put on the list?  Every major litigation would surely have coverage somewhere, especially if a big company was involved.  Do we list every single litigation anyone has?  I see Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, Open source license litigation, and Apple Inc. litigation exist.  If the cases are notable enough to have their own articles, links to them and a brief mention of them could be done on the main article.   D r e a m Focus  18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't had time to look into it much, but I should note that at least some of the blue-linked articles are really only pointing to sections of other articles, because the lawsuit itself isn't sufficiently notable (e.g. Marvel v. NCSoft). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I went through and confirmed some have their own articles for a case, and erased some that linked to articles that didn't mention them at all.  D r e a m Focus  21:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment kindly notified me of this discussion. I have no memory of starting this page (12 years ago!) and don't think this should be an independent page given the standards of wikipedia today, but I suspect many of the cases listed are notable and should be incorporated to the main article for the EFF if appropriate. AlasdairEdits (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with the assessment of Dream Focus. The article is currently in a shabby state, but at its core I think it has a valid topic for a standalone list (or at least a section of Electronic Frontier Foundation). I think it would be much improved with the addition of some prose for each entry, summarizing the case, and the EFF's role. Also, some secondary sourcing would be good (and it seems like plenty exists), and perhaps a little more scrutiny as to whether all these red linked cases are actually likely to be notable. Colin M (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  18:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NLIST says, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, and this list could be developed, perhaps with IRAC-style paragraphs for the cases, including ones without sufficient sources to warrant a standalone article. There are also already about 73 blue links in the article by my quick count, which seems like a lot to incorporate into the article. WP:NLIST also says, Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists, and as a group, for example, in 2006, the EFF is described by the San Francisco Chronicle as having "gone to court for hackers, programmers, inventors, challengers to patent and copyright restrictions -- for the most part, the gadflies and small fry of the computer age, confronting barriers built by government and, increasingly, by private industry", and in 2013, the EFF is described in The New York Times as "a longstanding civil liberties group that focuses on rights in the online world." The list therefore seems notable and appears to have informational, navigation, and development purposes. Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge or weak keep The list is in questionable shape, but there is precedent for this with List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union. The EFF isn't as high profile as the ACLU. But we also have a comparable list for List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom, which I think still meets our bare minimum standards of notability. I take the opinion of the article creator AlasdairEdits under advisement and think that a merge could be the best path to improving this article. But otherwise, the article should be drastically rewritten and cleaned up as described by Beccaynr, with very little to WP:PRESERVE except the blue links. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.