Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol


 * 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 Speedy Keep per everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright symbol

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Strange as it may seem, I actually can't find any detailed, direct, significant coverage of this symbol itself. Sure, there are a lot of sources that say, "Type it followed by your name and the year to copyright a work," but that's about it, and that is not significant coverage. I fear that this is not a notable symbol. ╟─TreasuryTag► fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale ─╢ 07:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, this should be entertaining. 28bytes (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Historically we can say that it appears already in the Copyright Act of 1909 (Wikisource) section 18. Hektor (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that appearance "direct, detailed coverage" as mandated by WP:SIGCOV? ╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 10:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – See and, for starters. In the event that the article is to be deleted, then at least merge valid information to copyright. There probably aren't going to be lengthy articles, theses and analyses of a symbol. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the notability guideline requires you to be slightly more specific than simply providing a link to Google Books. You need to explicitly cite sources which contain "direct, detailed coverage" of the copyright symbol. ╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 13:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a quick search on "Copyright symbol" gives the short history of its use and on how it is to be formed in extended keyboard sets. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not direct, detailed coverage. (Or if it is, please link to it so that we can all bask in its significance and include it in the article and stuff.) ╟─TreasuryTag► duumvirate ─╢ 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow keep and a damn great fishslap to a nominator who ought to know better. Yes, the article fails to explain the origin and typography of the symbol. However the first ref cites a US statute that accepts C in a circle as an accepted symbol for copyright, and that's enough for basic proof of notability here, against deletion. Was there any useful purpose to this nomination, other than TT believing that he has some sort of quota to achieve for gratuitous deletions? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first ref cites a US statute that accepts C in a circle as an accepted symbol for copyright, and that's enough for basic proof of notability here – I think that copyright legislation has to be considered a primary (ie. not third-party) source in this case? Was there any useful purpose to this nomination, other than TT believing that he has some sort of quota to achieve for gratuitous deletions? I'll fax you an answer to this question just as soon as you answer mine: was there any point to that comment other than to gratuitously allege bad faith on my part? ╟─TreasuryTag► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow keep - significant history and importance discussed in scolarly works (lawyers have spoken written). independant discussion of the symbol and its significance is not limited to the law implementing it. Reliable see lawyers (oh well, one could argue ... but then there is peer review). Sources eg Business Law and the Legal Environment, Standard Edition by Jeffrey F. Beatty,Susan S. Samuelson discusses current use of the symbol and why it is used despite not being a legal requirement in the US anymore. Many more if you search in the right places. Agathoclea (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on trademark symbol and just about every other typographical symbol you could name.  ?, !, @,, $, &.  All of them have histories and variants.  They are all encyclopedia subjects.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting mix of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ALLORNOTHING and "Other shit exists" in other words? ╟─TreasuryTag► person of reasonable firmness ─╢ 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BASH. This page deals with a unique subject and nominating it for deletion is and was likely to start a protracted argument. I'm curious to see what such a discussion could accomplish. Several Times (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons stated above. For what it is worth, the bible of copyright law, Melville Nimmer's Nimmer on Copyright, §7.07, has a five-page discussion of the proper use of the symbol, including earth-shattering debates over whether the Universal Copyright Convention mandates the use of the symbol (rather than the word), and whether the enclosure of the "c" by parentheses or a hexagon, rather than a circle, passes muster. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. The letter of the notability guidelines or the essay cited above by the nominator don't override the requirement to use basic common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's all been covered already so I'm going to join the chorus by simply saying, "keep".--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep. This article looks like it could become valuable info one day. Also, Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. James1011R (talk, contribs - Visit The Forge) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. 21:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: it's a ubiquitously-visible typographical symbol with substantial legal significance and real-world importance, and the subject of substantial commentary in multiple reliable sources. -- The Anome (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion would definitely hurt the encyclopedia.  Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2011 (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.