Talk:Franchise fraud/Archives/2012

Questions about nomination for deletion

This is my first Wikipedia article, so I am not surprised I have made a mistake somewhere.

I am confused. At 05:53, 2 December 2010 Bearcat (talk | contribs) (4,880 bytes) (categorization/tagging using AWB) (undo) said to add categories to the article, but at 18:40, 4 December 2010 Wuhwuzdat (talk | contribs) (5,319 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; the article is nominated for deletion, without comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DozenAttempts (talk • contribs)

The reason stated for the possible deletion is "non encyclopedic essay". There is also a category of: "Nominator unsure of category"

I am confused as to why the article was nominated for deletion. I checked the WP article creation, and the article is not a definition, does not have original thought, is not journalism, and is verified with 5 references to sources. These sources are in the public domain.

The article does not violate any copyright. The text in the article is directly copied from public domain websites: the FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation website, and the FTC Federal Trade Commission website. The text in the Wikipedia article concerning the FTC Franchise Rule is directly copied from the pdf file located at the FTC website for the franchise rule. The references for these are listed in the references section.

I am trying to set up a redirect from Franchise scam, to the Franchise fraud article. Is the Franchise scam redirect what is being tagged for speedy deletion? If so, I need some guidance on how to properly set up redirects.

I notice that there is no Wikipedia article covering "The Franchise Rule", and there is plenty of information at the FTC website, and in pdf's at the FTC website to create this article. Should I create an article for "The Franchise Rule", and then have a redirect?

Please indicate where in the article it is a "non encyclopedic essay". Do I need to re-edit a part to make it an encyclopedic essay; if so, please state specifically where in the article. Most of the article is a direct copy from the FBI and FTC websites.DozenAttempts 19:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, after you added your {{hangon}} the article was nominated for a more formal process of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franchise fraud, that's now the place to make any arguments to keep it. The template links at the top of the article may be helpful. --CliffC (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Are state legal codes copyrighted?

Thank you for looking at the article Franchise Fraud. Is sourced to a government website, the state of California. I understand that US Government in not copyright, unless stated. Is this not the same for the California state?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DozenAttempts (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think the individual states' works are free of copyright, that's why I reverted the addition of material direct from the California legal codes. But I'm going to retitle your question and move it and this reply to Talk:Franchise fraud where they can be seen by a broader audience that's hopefully more expert in copyright matters. I think the bigger issue here is the need to get such descriptions from a reliable source. Anything taken direct from legal codes should be rewritten/paraphrased to simplify it and remove the legalese so it can be understandable by everyone. --CliffC (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Public Domain California copyright statement for the pages cited in the Wikipedia article

Here is the link to the California copyright notice on the website that was used for the article: http://www.corp.ca.gov/privacy/conditions.asp#links

Here is the text at this link on California copyright notice:

OWNERSHIP

In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. In order to use any information on this web site not owned or created by the State, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources. The State shall have the unlimited right to use for any purpose, free of any charge, all information submitted via this site except those submissions made under separate legal contract. The State shall be free to use, for any purpose, any ideas, concepts, or techniques contained in information provided through this site."

I can definitely see that the California legal article could be nominated for a re-edit, to make it less leagalizee(sp) - after all, the article mostly quotes the California Corporations website, which has a public domain copyright notice.

I disagree that the article should be removed because of Copyright violation, which was the reason the article was removed. The article is clearly not a copyright violation.

I will undo the deletion, and request that the article entry be submitted for cleanup. I am not sure if I will be following the proper procedure to do this. Please advise in this discussion page where I can find the proper procedure to 1) revert the article entry back in to the article. 2) present the article for a clean up request.

Thank you. DozenAttempts 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DozenAttempts (talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)