Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing

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. The concerns raised about how the article is currently written are valid and need to be addressed editorially, but there's no consensus that they amount to a need for draftification. Owen× ☎ 13:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is largely primary sources and WP:SYNTH of these sources. The first half is mostly just explianing what hyperlinks and framing is (mostly unnecessary WP:HOWTO), and the 2nd half largely acknowledges there really aren't copyright issues in US/Germany and other contexts. Why does this even exist? ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The absence of prohibitions for a subject controversial enough to have led to lawsuits is itself the notable thing worth being covered in an encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with this article that cannot be fixed. BD2412 T 22:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article exists because the topic is notable: It satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and HeinOnline, in particular. There are many entire periodical articles about this, such as: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. No evidence has been offered of actual SYNTH or HOWTO. James500 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree that this topic is notable, but the article as written is basically an essay. For example, this part of the lead is written as if it's part of an argumentative paper: The issues about linking and framing have become so intertwined under copyright law that it is impractical to attempt to address them separately. As will appear, some decisions confuse them with one another, while other decisions involve and therefore address both. Likewise, this section is 100% OR: Related issues arise from use of inline links (also called image-source or img-src links because the HTML code begins with "img src=") on Web pages. An inline link places material — usually an image such as a JPEG or GIF — from a distant website into the Web page being viewed. For example, the adjacent image is the seal of the USPTO, as shown on some of its pages at the USPTO website. Additionally, the "History of copyright litigation in field" section is also OR, as it lists several cases without providing reliable secondary sources that establish that the cases listed are significant and provides unsourced analysis of the state of the law. Several of the sections lack citations and make arguments, rather than describe what RSes say about this topic. We should not allow an article that draws legal conclusions to remain in mainspace without adequate sourcing; this would be uncontroversial if the article had MEDRS issues and the standard should be the same when we have legal information on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The headnotes in the third series of the Federal Reporter (which is what "F.3d" means) are an independent secondary source. Most cases are not reported, and a case would not be reported in a series of law reports unless it was believed to have precedent value (and is therefore "significant"). In any event, the cases of Kelly and Perfect 10 are discussed in treatises and periodical articles on the subject, which is not surprising since they are Ninth Circuit decisions on the point (and, indeed, they are independently notable).
And you can add the Ticketmaster and Shetland Times cases to that as well, based on sources in Google Books, such as [10] and numerous other sources that are returned by a search for "Shetland Times Ltd. v. Wills"+hyperlinks. I should also point out that a lack of citations is not the same thing as OR.

The standard of MEDRS should not be applied to law, because law is not an experimental science, legal sources bear no resemblence to medical sources either in their content or their correct use, and it would be pseudolaw to apply the methodolgy of medical science to law. James500 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not that law is a science or analogous to it, but that we shouldn't present legal information to people based on an editor's opinion or analysis of case law, which is how the article is currently written. I think this article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I also am not arguing that lack of citation implies OR, but this article is clearly written in an essay-like, argumentative style, and the fact that there are no citations in significant parts of the articles compounds the problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding precedential value, that is decided by the court issuing the opinion, not the reporter. I don't think headnotes alone are sufficient to establish that a particular case is significant, since every published case gets them, and not every published case represents a significant legal development. For example, in New York, every appellate decision is published and has precedential value, even if it's a short, unsigned memorandum. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "in New York, every appellate decision is published". Published by whom? A law report is not the same thing as an official transcript. I can tell you for certain that in England, not all appellate decisions are reported, and the reporter decides which cases to report based on his opinion of their value, not the court. Similarly in England, the headnote tells you what the reporter thinks the ratio decidendi of the case is. James500 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're published by both the official reporter (the Law Reporting Bureau [LRB]) and by West in their proprietary law reports. The LRB writes the headnotes as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In New York, only selected trial court opinions get reported, but all Appellate Division opinions are reported. Some states and the federal appellate courts are like the UK, where not all appellate decisions are reported. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Voorts: Leaving aside whether the present state of the article is satisfactory (and I was already prepared to accept that it is less than optimal), draftification is not likely to result in improvements, since most drafts are invariably abandoned, because most editors won't edit in the draftspace. How about cutting the article down to a properly referenced "stub" without any content that might potentially violate NOT, so that it can be rebuilt and re-expanded in the mainspace? I can do that for you now if you want. James500 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a start on removing the disputed material. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not attempt to improve a page that has been draftified after an AfD, because there is no satisfactory procedure for moving such pages back to the mainspace. James500 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the process is that any editor in good standing can move it back to mainspace when it's ready, or, if one wants to be cautious, it can be sent through AfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say there was no procedure, I said that I find the procedure to be so completely unsatisfactory that I will not participate in it. WP:ATD-I says "incubation must not be used as a backdoor to deletion". So, if this page is moved to the draftspace, I must ask who is going to improve it and move it back to the mainspace (because it will not be me)? Is anyone actually promising that they will personally improve the article and eventually move it back to the mainspace? James500 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is required to promise to commit to improve the article in draft space, just as nobody is required to commit to improve the article if it is kept. If this article is moved to draftspace the draft should be marked with {{Promising draft}} and WT:LAW should be notified. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it's clear this article has way too much WP:SYNTH to remain, and in addition is frankly, too technical. We should avoid trying to provide legal advice on Wikipedia. This article should probably focus way less on the case law and a lot more on any news media coverage of the subject (I suspect there have been a lot of reporters and think tanks that have probably explored this). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should focus more on academic coverage in law reviews/journals, rather than media coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The body of case law is the subject. The academic coverage in law reviews is coverage of that body of case law. The problem is not the discussion of cases that are precedents. There may, however, be a problem with what sources that discussion is referenced to, and whether the sources support the claims in that discussion. James500 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist due to an even split between keep and draft
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:25, 5 May 2024 (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.