Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patent trolls


 * 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 Delete. This is a list of people/companies that some allege are patent trolls because in essence being a patent troll is always an allegation for no one is available to adjudicate the merits of the claim. Like all the "allegations of" articles at WP this is crap, POV, OR, with BLP problems mixed in. And yes, I'm well aware that the arbcom is considering "allegations of apartheid" articles but seems to have indicated that although those articles are crap, it is a content matter and not within their remit. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

List of patent trolls

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Inherently POV, lead states that the term is subjective and controversial and that this list cannot even be accurate, creates BLP and libel concerns, entirely subjective, and not anything remotely encyclopedic. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As the one who created the list I agree with some of the above. Properly completed and with the most notable historic examples, it could be a useful compendium of key events and reference points in patent history to illustrate the concept of patent trolling.  However, as it exists now the list is unencyclopedic and keeps attracting POV edits.  About half the entries are the real thing (meaning, the major instances of behavior characterized as patent trolling) and the other half are random examples.  Unless someone is ready to step up and improve it, it is of only slight value to the reader.  I disagree that there are BLP or libel concerns.  Everything is verifiable, the list makes no conclusions, and it has the same standards as any other article here.  The list is neither inaccurate or subjective, nor claims to be. The statement that the list is incomplete is from a list template. That's not a valid criticism, unless one is proposing to do away with all lists.  For background, I created this list as a place to rehabilitate unruly material from the "patent troll" article that was making that article messy and unduly POV.  It is sometimes useful to separate list sections out from their parent articles for quite a few reasons, not the least of which is to keep the POV editors away from the more important article.  I would not be sorry to see the list go if it can't be improved, but that would mean that the main article is going to become a possible target for contention, edit wars, etc., as people try to add inappropriate examples.  If we do get rid of the list someone should first down it carefully to see if there is any salvageable material that ought to be added to the main article (but not as a list), or to the articles about the specific companies involved.  Wikidemo 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: How about turning the list into a list of companies considered to be patent trolls, requiring every entry to have a specific, notable source denoting it as a patent troll, to eliminate the possibility of OR? — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "patent troll" is POV no matter how many sources you have. The neutral term is "plaintiff." Gazpacho 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - at the very least, I see obvious WP:BLP violations. Beyond that, this is original research on a neologism with hazy criteria for inclusion ("characterized by the media").  POV dumping ground.  /Blaxthos 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The title should probably be moved to anything else, particularly since (a) It uses the dreaded "L-word" that causes a cataplectic reaction and, worse, (b) Wikipedia is one of the few places where articles can be found in abundance about mythical trolls. Once one gets past the title, however, it's about patent disputes.  Author admits there's room for improvement, which is a nice change from the usual author attitude... improve, don't delete.  Mandsford 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreasonable as a List of ambulance chasers or a List of closeted homosexuals. Unlikely to be salvageable with move to NPOV title (List of alleged patent trolls, etc). Eleland 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently POV, original research, potentially libellous. Compare to a hypothetical "List of price gougers" or "List of environment-destroying companies." You can remove problematic material from articles, you don't have to spin it off. Gazpacho 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with patent trolls. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: please don't merge with the Patent Trolls article. That would only acerbate the POV issue.  If merging/deleting, it is best to select any examples that are well sourced and important, and put them in as a section in an article article about famous patent disputes.  The problem is that the patent troll article describes a neologism, and it gets a lot more POV if the article actually states that specific companies meet the definition of that neologism.  Wikidemo 07:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as inherently POV. The patent troll article covers the concept, which is enough; we don't need this. TomTheHand 19:29, 18 September 2007 (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.