Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Foundation v. WordLogic Corporation et al


 * 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 merge to Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation v. WordLogic Corporation et al

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

How is this notable? Other than a brief mention on Bloomberg and a handful of "summary of all current cases" websites, this doesn't seem to have attracted any interest at all, and the sole "sources" are a blog post on Techdirt, and a Commons copy of a primary source. Just having the word "Wikimedia" in the name doesn't automatically make it notable for Wikipedia; the WMF takes legal action against people, and people take legal action against the WMF, all the time. &#8209; Iridescent 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment If Techdirt is considered a good enough source (some blogs are), this thing could be mentioned at Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation per nom and . Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 15:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation This is nascent litigation, and might become notable some day.  WP:Too soon. WP:Preserve WP:Not paper.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the ping. I discovered this ongoing litigation as it was mentioned in the wikitech-l technical mailing list (courtesy ping to ) . After a bit of research I couldn't find better sources than the ones I offered, but nonetheless I thought it was a relevant event because the defendants in this action claim to have patents and ownership over parts of the MediaWiki software we run (namely the autocomplete search box). If the defendants were to prevail in their claims, changes in our software would need to be accomplished. The English Wikipedia has many users that also happen to be MediaWiki developers and that might have helped in creating or maintaining the search functionality as well. I also planned to try to expand the article a bit, but due to the current events I have not been able to do so. Given that I do not edit that often on the English Wikipedia I am not sure I should be making an explicit 'keep' or 'delete' statement. In any case, I apologize to the community if this is eventually not as relevant as I thought. Best regards, &mdash;MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2020 (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.