Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations that support the Stop Online Piracy Act


 * 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   Rename to List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act and expand.. v/r - TP 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

List of organizations that support the Stop Online Piracy Act

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A list of supporters of a US House bill that hasn't even made it out of committee yet is far from notable. There are literally thousands of bills proposed in the US every year. Only a few, like SOPA, will acheive notability prior to becoming law -- but as far as I can tell, no other proposed bill on Wikipedia has ever generated a standalone "list of supporters." Obviously, most bills will have supporters and opponents. There is nothing in the article to suggest why this particular bill's supporters merit a separate article. Hartboy (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's already a substantial section in Stop Online Piracy Act. Better to just add the list's ext. link in that article for anybody who's that interested. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unsourced list for a hot-button current events topic. I'm not against political action against enemies of freedom, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. This is a de facto blacklist... Carrite (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article in its current state has had several new sources added to it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not unsourced. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Entirely unsourced with a tinge of NPOV violation as no article exists for organizations that oppose the act. I support taking action against these companies, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Furthermore, the constantly changing nature of this topic makes information extremely difficult to verify correctly.  Marlith  (Talk)   04:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article is sourced at this time, per the references section of the article :
 * Smith, Lamar. "List of Supporters: H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act". House Judiciary Committee. Retrieved 23 December 2011.
 * McCullagh, Declan. "GoDaddy bows to boycott, now 'opposes' SOPA copyright bill". CBS Interactive, Inc. (CNET). Retrieved 29 December 2011.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A focused list article that is now sourced, and more can be added. This is a reasonable content fork from the Stop Online Piracy Act article, and many of the companies and organizations in the List of organizations that support the Stop Online Piracy Act article are not included in the "Stop Online Piracy Act" article. This article needs more citations, cleanup, and likely some copy-editing. Adding rescue tag. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Stop Online Privacy Act...seems the most logical thing to do  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although a hot-button topic, moving for the whole list to be deleted instead of merged strikes me as a one-sided opinion on the matter. Wikipedia info should always be taken with a grain of salt, and I fail to see why the list should be deleted because "constantly changing nature of this topic makes information extremely difficult to verify correctly". By that standard, there are MANY pages that would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.24.248 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See also WP:PRESERVE, a section within Editing policy. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced and probably impossible to source. This is a current event and organisation may give or withdraw their support as the political tides ebb and flow.  Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.  This list satisfies none of these.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has a link to an official government list, but there's no reason to copy it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article's sourcing has been expanded as of this post. This article is clearly possible to source, contrary to the !vote to delete above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete a link in the main article to the sole source that this article is based on is sufficient. This article is going to get stale really quickly and updates are most likely to be original research. RadioFan (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep All information can be very easily confirmed. Obviously the government would have this listed somewhere, and someone has found and linked to the PDF  in the article already.  Its easier to sort through the information on Wikipedia than have to deal with a PDF.  Here you can read the names, and click on them to see their Wikipedia articles.  The main article is too long, so having this list as a separate article makes perfect sense.  As for the ones that are listed as having removed their names from the support, its not that difficult to Google news search to confirm this and add references.  I'll go work on that now.   D r e a m Focus  08:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete there is a section in the real fucking article. --74.111.185.203 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The main article doesn't list all the organizations though. Its important to have a complete list.   D r e a m Focus  22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An opinion that a list like this is "important" or not does not entail notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. The fact remains that this is a list of supporters for proposed US legislation, referring to a bill that has not even made it out of committee for one chamber of Congress no less. There are thousands of bills proposed every year in the US, making any one proposed bill a run-of-the-mill event and presumed not notable. What's more, as far as I can tell, no other legislation, proposed or enacted, has a similar 'list of supporters' on Wikipedia. What makes a list of supporters for this bill the exception? Hartboy (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be the massive amount of media coverage of course.  D r e a m Focus  06:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - this feels more like directory than encyclopedic information. Where there is a single source that already lists the organizations, we should simply link to that. However, I disagree with those who claim that the article is NPOV or entails advocacy.  While some may use it for advocacy, that is not our problem.  And while it is NPOV to have a list for only one side, that is solvable by creating a second article (which I think would also be a bad idea). Matchups 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)  P.S. If we can delete the actual organizations as well, so much the better.
 * Rename to "List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act" and expand to include organizations that oppose it. As others have said, there are sufficient sources for the list, and it is notable. Including opposing organizations in the list gets rid of the POV issues. MarkGyver (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I support this. Of course we will need to find a reliable source for the organizations that oppose SOPA, and maybe changing the headings "Removed Organisations" to a sub-heading for each group which supports and opposes SOPA. 86.184.38.225 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did find three big companies(Google, Twitter, Facebook) that opposed it, that were never on the list, and added them with references, but then an IP address removed that. I support renaming the list and adding them back in.    D r e a m Focus  23:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought this list was for those that supported it, rather than those that opposed it. Timeoin (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why we are discussing changing the name. No sense just showing one side.    D r e a m Focus  16:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Support renaming to List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act. Here's an entry that could be added to such an article:
 * Wikipedia (Community) – (Opposes the Act) (Quote from CBS News source below: "Calling it a "decision of the Wikipedia community," Wales said he plans to join other Web sites in ceasing operations to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, a controversial antipiracy bill being debated in Congress.")


 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP/RENAME this issue is too politically charged for deletion of this article to not be a political act, and the SOPA article DOES NOT contain a list of supporters. (Drn8 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Rename and expand per MarkGyver's suggestion, as a spinoff list from the main article per WP:SS. The topic of opposition or support to this bill is notable enough, as seen through the media coverage.  Sandstein   09:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a directory without any real editorial analysis. Mt  king  (edits)  04:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has a significant lede section, which provides context. Perhaps more information could be incorporated into the lede about the various organizations on the list. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and/or rename and expand per MarkGyver's suggestions. -Mardus (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. A sourced and fairly appropriate sub-article of the one for SOPA. The fact that the list is coming from only one source is a bit questionable, but the list itself has seen some secondary coverage e.g.: . There are some additional sources for this type of material that have received secondary coverage. I've added them to the article's talk page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Extensive policy violations. As an ongoing issue (and as evidenced by the GoDaddy flareup), any entries could be here today and gone tomorrow, per CURRENTEVENTS, NOTNEWS, and SOAP, especially as relating to keeping the article to list all the "bad" companies that support the bill.  There's also a NOTINHERITED problem.  The bill may be notable, the organizations listed as supporting are notable, but their intersection on this list is not, and a simple list is really a question of potential NOTDIRECTORY.  Additionally, NOTBATTLEGROUND - if the deletion is "politically charged", then isn't its creation exactly the same?  If we cannot therefore be NPOV on the matter, then there's another policy violation.  Reliance on one source is also not good, and any of the real major stuff would work just as well in the company and bill articles - that's what wikilinks are for, after all.  Wikipedia is here to serve an information repository, not an advocacy group, cutting-edge news agency, or Internet watchdog. MSJapan (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of the eight points of WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? All of them, or just some of them? The article reads rather neutrally, simply presenting a list of organizations that have stated an official stance regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act. A very reasonable content fork from the Stop Online Piracy Act article. Perhaps this article should be expanded, to also (neutrally) include opponents, which includes the Wikipedia community (see below). (See rename comments in this AfD.) This article doesn't seem to advocate anything, it's a list article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did everyone notice the big black banner atop the Wikipedia? They are blocking out Wikipedia in protest of SOPA.  This is obvious a major event, and we need an article showing who all the major players are, and what side they are on.   D r e a m Focus  03:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So because Wikipedia is protesting SOPA, we need an exhaustive list of every notable entity that has any kind of public stance on SOPA as a separate article? Not at all seeing how one necessitates the other, sorry. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIR. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Of course SOPA proponents don't like the list of their allies in one place... - Skysmith (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Was actually going to close it as such myself, but decided on preview to throw my opinion instead. Ok, it's sourced - but WP:NOTDIRECTORY and lots of other WP:NOT's still applies. Max Semenik (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific regarding the other WP:NOTs you're referring to? After all, it's an entire page of guidelines. Which of the eight points of WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? All of them, some of them, which ones? Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The nomination reason is basically WP:OTHERSTUFF. The list is clearly not a directory and meets the requirements for a standalone list. Rlendog (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to either List of supporters and opposers or MarkGyver's suggested title. The SOPA issue has gained massive attention. Whether or not the bill passes, the deliberations alone would be massively notable. Full lists of supporters and opposers on something of this scale of notice, where supporters and opposers were massively noticed in world headlines (GoDaddy? Twitter? Google? Wikimedia itself?), would make it inconceivable to me to consider this list non-encyclopedic.


 * It's a classic use of a list article, not a directory, per WP:LIST: "may be a valuable information source". The nomination is also heavily flawed - "SOPA isn't yet a law" doesn't speak to notability of the list of bill supporters/opposers (WP:N, WP:NOTINHERITED), and "I don't know any other bills with list of supporter/opposer articles" isn't a deletion argument (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Other flaws can be fixed.


 * The only options left are keep or merge and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE makes clear where a section would be so long as to unbalance an article, or form a useful article in its own subtopic right, a subtopic is viable. For me, this meets that criterion. My only qualm is we need one for opposers (same logic) or else (better) rename to List of supporters and opposers... or MarkGyver's suggestion List of organizations with official stances... . FT2 (Talk 18:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I counted how many companies were on the list which is supplied as a reference and there were 138. But there are only 124 in the article.  Why?  Obviously the official list has been updated again.  Some of those on the list aren't on either list shown on the article (i.e. Actors Equity Association).  In other words this list is just wrong and could cause problems for Wikipedia.  The "official" list could change at any time and I doubt if anyone is monitoring all 138 organizations.  Why not just have a link in the SOPA article?  We shouldn't have information that is wrong and I suppose if you're following the rules you could say it's unsourced. Tanya Stuart (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On a list like this, if an entry isn't cited, feel free to tag it with verify source which looks like this . If appropriate, remove it (though it's best to fix if able or tag for others if not). Shouldn't be hard to check (Google: sopa COMPANYNAME support). But "some items not cited" isn't a deletion reason. Deletion is based on "can this be made into a valid list/article by our criteria", not "is it in good shape now". FT2 (Talk 19:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR, point 7, with a big dollop of WP:RECENT. Deor (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename or Merge - As it stands right now Stop_Online_Piracy_Act has been shortened, to create a fork for this article. Since the same hasn't been done for Stop_Online_Piracy_Act, this clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Either it needs to be made into a list of both, potentially expanded from a list to a full article on who supports and opposes and why, with a link from that article, or it needs to just be merged back in.
 * 24.11.87.186 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename with MarkGyver's suggested title. Then improve the article with better sourcing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2012 (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.