Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcasters' rights under copyright law


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that the content/article in the current form doesn't belong here. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Broadcasters' rights under copyright law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a directory of statutes, nor is it a place to list case law or legal outcomes. Per WP:NOTESSAY, this article has no place on Wikipedia Exemplo347 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, with the caveat that Wikipedia should have articles about notable cases and important areas of law. But in this instance, we do - under Copyright law of the United States. If there is some aspect of Broadcaster's rights that bears discussion, it would be best to discuss it there. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted below, the US article is but one example of the articles we already have on this topic. A comparative analysis of differences and similarities between the laws of these two countries might be worth exploring - but there's no real way to do that in an encyclopedic manner, within our rules. We don't analyze here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * We should retain this page as it is a comparative analysis of US law and Indian Law. It is written in encyclopedia-style and from a neutral point of view. The page does not simply state the statutory provisions and case laws, but provides information about broadcaster's rights under Indian and US law. Even though there is a page on US copyright law, broadcaster's rights is a neighbouring right which is separate from the rights of the copyright owner. Thus, this article satisfies the requirement of notability as the topic is worthy of research. Srishti Singhania (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, what is stated here is an argument for importance, not an argument for notability. The notability guidelines say little, if anything, about important fields of study.  Topics "worthy of research" are researched by professionals outside of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia only reports the consensus of professional results if there are independent, reliable sources indicating significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP This is a legitimate area of law. See .  --David Tornheim (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to the discussion going on, I would like to submit the following:
 * 1. This article is on definitely a notable' topic. By notability, Wikipedia refers something as 'worthy of notice'. Broadcaster organisations' right is worthy of notice. In many jurisdictions, it is becoming a heavily litigated aspect of law.
 * 2. It cannot be included in the same page as Copyright under US or Copyright under India law, as
 * (a) it is one of the neighbouring rights, distinct from the rights of copyright owners.
 * (b) This topic has its own set of controversies, and interpretations, that take heavily from technology and media industry.
 * 3. In my quest to keep this page as neutral, I have limited my engagements with the arguments in this area of study. I have mentioned the important rights, the scope of rights, their exceptions and the important case laws.
 * Moreover, in consonance with the Wikipedia aim, I believe with eventual contributions and edits, this page will indeed be at a better position. I myself is engaging in editing the same. Yashasvi.law (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note We already have articles that cover this material at Copyright law of the United States and Copyright law of India so there's no justification for this. Notability isn't an issue, my rationale doesn't mention it. My rationale is based on WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a textbook, directory, or a place for essays. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   12:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This falls under WP:NOT. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the concept that a copyrighted work has separate rules regarding re-publication and broadcasting is probably notable. The article as written doesn't appear to describe that. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The article needs work but there's more than enough information on this topic to warrant keeping the article. The Copyright law of the United States article that you mentioned is excessively long as is, so a link to this article with would be more appropriate than moving the content from here to there. --Posted by  Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 06:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You really think Wikipedia is a place for "Compare and Contrast" essays - complete with a conclusion? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The page should be reformatted to bring it more in line with the manual of style. It should also include more worldwide examples and not just the US/India. Those are solvable quality issues and don't warrant a deletion. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not correct here. This essay should be deleted (start it again from scratch if you want to, per WP:TNT) because it's a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As noted above, we already have articles on copyright law in both the US and India. I can think of no reason why we would want to start populating Wikipedia with arbitrary 'contrast and compare' articles of this kind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.