I considered that the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia is in the US, but decided that World News is appropriate in this case, since a great deal of the world relies on it, and since its content comes from international contributors. So I guess our thoughts are mostly aligned.

Thanks for allowing it.

Of note, Jordan, is that this guideline is strictly for the English Wikipedia unless other Wikipedias decide to adopt it (IIRC the German Wikipedia already adopted one some time ago). Nevertheless, we get contributions and readership from non-English-speaking countries all the time as the first, most complete, and easily most active Wikipedia. (And, of course, English-speaking countries are very much not just the US; practically every grain of sand in the UK has its own article, for example.)

I agree with you therefore that this constitutes world news.

Edit: you can use the WikiStats 2 tool to easily visualize that. Lots of visits from India, as an example. Additionally, the English Wikipedia gets slightly more visitors per capita from the UK than it does from the US.

What is WRONG with you people?

if I had to guess, this is what made people downvote your post lol

Response to your edit:

I am not among those who downvoted, but since you asked, I'll offer a guess as to why so many people did:

1. The way you phrased your second sentence, it could be interpreted to mean that you consider the story to be inappropriate here. Perhaps some people (especially those who read Lemmy while in a hurry) thought that was what you meant. It could have been made more clear if you had written, "this was reported...".

2. This story is relevant to people all over the world, while the complaint you received was that it concerns a US company. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. I believe more than a few members of this community, maybe even most, recognize that fact, and find it unacceptable for their news channel to obstruct information that concerns them just because the source happens to be in the US.

   To be clear, the rule here forbids "United States Internal News". The rule does not forbid "News emerging from the United States". Since the policies of a major global reference source like Wikipedia are clearly not US internal news, some community members surely recognize that flagging it for removal was inappropriate. I happen to share this view, and this is not an isolated incident.

   Once in the past, I submitted a scientific report, and it was removed here on the grounds that the scientists were in the US. The post was not "United States Internal News" and did not break any of the community's rules. It was scientific research, without geographic or political boundaries. It was relevant to everyone. And yet it was denied visibility to us, the members here. I found that absurd, and deeply concerning: This community, which positions itself as a global information source, was filtering out information in a way that we have come to expect from state-owned media in authoritarian regimes. And it was presuming to treat scientific research as though it were somehow invalid just because it had been done in the US.

Edit:

In any case, I hope this helps you to understand some likely reasons why your comment received downvotes.

Those of us who have walked in the moderator's shoes for long enough will come to understand that sometimes it's the complaint that is misguided, not the target of the complaint, and that broadcasting such complaints (as you did here) gives them an air of validity that they do not deserve.