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 speedily kept per WP:SNOW. No chance that this will succeed so it might as well be shut down here. FCYTravis 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCO-Linux controversies[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

POV fork, mainly unreferenced, may infringe on WP:LIBEL. Better left for Groklaw. Electrawn 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and keep updated. It seems that this matter has proceeded through the courts over some three years already, and more info on where it stands and when finality can be expected would be of interest. There is talk of criminal proceedings surfacing out of this matter and that could also be of interest to a wider audience. Michael J. Mullany
• Fork from what article? Gronky 01:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How come it's POV? It doesn't say "SCO is wrong", it says that "X and Y say SCO is wrong, because...". Keep as an article on an important subject from recent history. - Sikon 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup and update as per Sikon above. MER-C 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (e-c) this doesn't seem even POV to me, much less a fork. And in any case, there is no reason why the subject of this article in inherently POV, which would be the only valid reason for deletion because of POV. Unreferenced, maybe, but this is certainly not a reason to bring an article here. And is there a reason why ((afdanons)) is already here while there are only three comments before mine? --- Deville (Talk) 03:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case if a few inexperienced (with respect to Wikipedia) people from Groklaw come over here. MER-C 04:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm one of those newbies from Groklaw, but I'd hate to see an online reference like this site surrender it's credibility via self-censorship because of fear that some overly-agressive company might take offense. It's my understanding that truth is a defense against Libel. Check out Groklaw's extensive database - you'll find the truth. Clean up is always good, but depriving history of a record of this lawsuit due to fear that unsubstiated libel charges might be filed (if SCO even survives) seems to be over-reaction. Wait to see if there is any threat of lawsuit first. If you start deleting articles because of a fear that someone may get offended by the truth, then this site loses much value. 66.134.134.124 04:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Ed Freesmeyer[reply]

• Keep. May need a little editing to clean up the text and wikify it, but I see no reason why it should be deleted. StuartCarter 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article seems relatively neutral, especially compared with some of the comments posted on Groklaw. If NPOV is disputed, better to correct the article, since a success by SCO would impact the whole Internet (much of which is powered by GNU/Linux). Murray Langton 04:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - For any unreferenced sections, a trawl through the legal documents, computer news sites, and the likes of Groklaw should find plenty of pointers to information that will back this lot up. And your reference to WP:LIBEL is just silly IMO. As for POV - explain what's POV about it (I can't see the problem), and then perhaps the article might be edited to eliminate your concerns. A biased article on a notable subject shouldn't be deleted, just re-edited. --Aim Here 05:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It needs a LOT of work, but if deleted it would only come back soon, and it's a noteworthy subject. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Who initiated this deletion procedure?! 09:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.10.85 (talk • contribs) (unfortunately a user named "SWATJester" decided to prevent me from removing my own question to which I found the answer. He even threatened me: "If you continue to do so you may be blocked") 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Important subject. POV?? --MaNeMeBasat 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleanup and update This is a complicated topic, and also a current event. I don't see any particular NPOV problems, but there's some emotive language which doesn't belong there. Elronxenu 12:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and copyedit I've scanned through the article and can't find any instances that would meet WP:LIBEL as the nominator claims. If this is a WP:POVFORK, what is it a fork of? The article has been around since 2004. I will say that the article needs copyediting because the language trips over itself and doesn't flow well from one point to the next. Also the references should be made inline per WP:FOOT. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and copyedit I agree with TheFarix above -- the article is two years old and there's no evidence that I can see that it was created as a POV fork -- the only articles it could be forking from are either SCO Group or Linux and I don't see a lot of disparity of "pov" from the sections on this controversy in those articles and this one. Rather than delete this article, I'd suggest merging the following ones into it: SCO v. IBM Red Hat v. SCO SCO v. Novell SCO v. AutoZone SCO v. DaimlerChrysler Dina 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If there's POV issues, clean it up. This is a clearly notable event in intellectual property law. FCYTravis 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - but it needs a total reorganization It's accurate - however there's been soo much detail added that what I think the page really needs is to be re-ordered and sectioned. I'm stupid enough to take a shot at it. UrbanTerrorist 15:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but it still needs work It's fairly accurate, but the situation it describes is changing daily. If there are errors, let us work at fixing them, not deleting an entire article about a very real and relevant situation. Tiger99 17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nominator fails to provide an example of Libel, and I'd rather not guess what he means. I see tons of extlink references (rather than proper citations) which could be fixed -- maybe they weren't there at the time of nomination. POV should also be fixed rather than deletion. -- Cjensen 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Article is in need of some polishing, but the topic is important and worthy of a Wiki article. Proposal for deletion is unfounded and possibly originates from a SCOX socket puppet or shill. 66.32.158.10 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Especally when the accusation is not supported by his or her edit history. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment An interesting fact is that the nominator has also tried to remove or modify entries for Darl McBride, Ralph Yarro and Marc Rochkind. That should have people wondering what the motives of the nominator are.
• Comment I think we can safely close this AfD under WP:SNOWBALL. Even eliminating the votes from anonymous IPs and single purpose accounts, the keep comments have been unanimous. No point in continuing this discussion for another four days. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's a well written article and I can't think of a single reason why it should be deleted. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reorganize because it is relevant to IP law.--Icephoto 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because these controversies have done more than anything to shore up the legal standing of the copylefts type of licenses Wikipedia itself is released under. --Ruby 21:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IANAL, but IMHO it is not libel, and seems to put out a pretty neutral stance on what is going on with SCO v. Linux. --Dennis The TIger 01:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are several Wikipedia entrys that also talk of and cite this SCO-Linux controversy, this page has a use. --Salgat 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please choose the right expressions, especially in a free encyclopedia. There's no such legal term as "intellectual property law", there is patent law, trademark law, and copyright law. RMS discourages using this term. - Sikon 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.