Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple Watch health monitoring patent dispute

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article and, maybe more importantly, no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Watch health monitoring patent dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly not notable for a standalone article. Per WP:NOPAGE, this more suitable as a section on the main Apple Watch page than an entire article. Fails WP:NEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:10YEAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Companies, Technology, and United States of America. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am wholly unconvinced that this should fall under WP:NEVENT, considering the "event" in this case is a two-year legal dispute that has heaps of RS for its entire length. Meets WP:GNG on its own, and its length probably precludes including it as a subsection of Apple Watch. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @InfiniteNexus: You first tried redirecting the page with the edit summary Oh my gosh, not again. This topic isn't notable for its own article. Is there more context to this dispute than what is listed here? . Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not with this article specifically, but this user has a history of rapidly creating articles about news stories that may not satisfy our notability guidelines. While their dedication is certainly appreciated, others and I have previously asked the editor to slow down and consider the applicable guidelines before creating an article. Whatever happened to Wikipedia being a lagging indicator of notability? It is unfortunate that AfDs of such articles often end with "no consensus" or "keep" because participants simply observed the number of sources and concluded that GNG has been met. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that your vaguely-referenced articles often pass the article for deletion process, it appears as though your critiques of stature are directed towards policy. WP:VPP may be of service here in resolving your quarrels. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not the policies that are the problem, it's that editors sometimes consider only surface-level thresholds such as number of sources and article length when determining whether a topic meets WP:N, when in fact we must consider whether a standalone article is truly warranted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A legal dispute is an event, so it should meet the criteria outlined at NEVENT. Many, many events have attracted "heaps" of RS coverage, which is why we have PAGs such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEAR. These events, while "notable" enough to warrant discussion on an article, should be incorporated in a larger article rather than a standalone one. For instance, the deaths of many famous people receive substantial coverage, but only a handful spin out into standalone articles (e.g. where is Death of Matthew Perry? Death of Chadwick Boseman?). Same goes for all kinds of corporate drama, celebrity gossip, and so forth. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A major patent dispute with sustained coverage over multiple years. Of comparable significance to Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc., or Samsung v. Huawei. Easily meets WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is WP:OSE; many articles exist on Wikipedia that should be deleted, but haven't yet been uncovered. Looking at those three articles, the first can probably be kept considering that it covers a multitude of cases; the second and third do not meet WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED and should be merged into Smartphone wars, Apple Inc. litigation, or similar articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:Sustained but do agree that the creator of this article has a chronic too soon article creation problem. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: media coverage well exceeds our usual notability threshold. Long-term legal, technological and financial impact will more than meet our WP:10YEARTEST based on how similar scope cases went. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 3 January 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.