Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software law


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Software law

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

This has been sitting here unsourced and stubbed for years and years. If there is anything notable about "software law", it could just be a section in information technology law or similar article. Zim Zala Bim talk 03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Software.   (talk | contribs) 03:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. Has signficant coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There are entire books   , and even entire periodicals (such as the Sofware Law Journal ), on this subject. There are also many entire periodical articles. The article is not unsourced now. The topic is very easily independently notable from information technology law, of which it is only part, and not even the majority. Being a "stub" is not a policy or guideline based grounds for the deletion of a topic that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for editing it, I remember seeing it a few months ago and being shocked how short it was. -1ctinus📝  🗨  11:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: per the sources uncovered by James. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to Information technology law as a section. Even with improvements, this is still minimal stub quality, and can be expanded within the broader context of information technology law until there is something to break out into a more complete article. BD2412  T 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That approach violates the guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE, which says "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". GNG creates a presumption that this topic should have an article, and in view of the language of PAGEDECIDE, there would have to be at least a policy or guideline to rebut that presumption in this case. That approach also goes against the advice of all three criteria of the essay WP:NOTMERGE. The most likely outcome of that approach will be that information technology law, which is already a large and unbalanced page, will become too large (violating WP:TOOBIG) or more unbalanced (violating WP:PROPORTION) or will omit relevant material (and the recent removals of content from that article probably already violate WP:PRESERVE, due to the removal of entire countries that ought to be included, such as the UK and India). James500 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, although this should also be covered as a section in information technology law. Software law is clearly separate from IT law as a whole, and I feel a lot of notable cases could be covered, like https://www.zdnet.com/article/sun-vs-microsoft-clash-of-the-titans-5000121284/ (from 2002, so reliable). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as it obviously meets GNG without any shred of doubt, but should be expanded ASAP. No point in having such a crummy stub that serves no purpose or usefulness. But technically it meets notability, so yeah, a Keep is a Keep. X (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (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.