Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramophone Company of India Limited Vs. Shanti Films Corporation and others


 * 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 article should be deleted from wikipedia. It has already been transwikied to wikiversity. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Gramophone Company of India Limited Vs. Shanti Films Corporation and others

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research. Although it is clear that the facts of the case are drawn directly from the relevant case files and case law, the conclusions drawn in this article regarding the significance of this case, and the comparison of Indian and US copyright law, are original opinions of the article's author. In fact, they were actually stated as the author's opinions ("I am of the opinion...") but when the article was PRODed, the author (when not logged in) removed the "opinion" introduction, but left the remaining text unchanged; so it is clearly still the author's own opinion and synthesis. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Concurs with nom on WP:NOTESSAY/WP:OR. Cites are only linking to the mentioned primary/court materials and not independent reliable sources.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 13:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If the objection to this article is that it is original research and an essay, the correct outcome is to transwiki it to our sister project Wikiversity, which accepts both. We are not allowed to delete material that is eligible for transwiki to a sister project before it has been transwikied. Alternatively, this could be rewritten, though this might involve stubifying it and completely rebuilding it from scratch. Either way, the text of the essay, and relevant page history, should be imported into Wikiversity. The case itself is notable under GNG (search for "Gramophone Company of India"/"... Co ..." + "Shanti Films") and under criteria 2 of CASES, as decisions of the High Court of Calcutta are binding: . James500 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this article might well find a home on Wikiversity, and a transwiki move might be a good outcome. But WP:ATD-TRANS does not require that we perform this transwiki move, it just recommends that it be considered as a viable alternative.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is compatible with the words "in perpetuity" in article 2 of the WMF bylaws. I assume that means that transwiki has to come before deletion, not after. I was under the impression we have to do as they say because they own this website. James500 (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One must remember that the words preceding "in perpetuity" include the phrase "useful information". For Wikipedia purposes, we have clear definitions of what constitutes useful information, and original research is not included in that. Since there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that requires the transwiki policy, and since the Wikimedia Foundation has not sought to rewrite the policies based on this element of the bylaws, I don't think we need to WikiLawyer the process. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I further point out that Wikiversity also maintains verifiability and reliable sources policies, so while there might not be an explicit policy forbidding original research, such a ban is implicit in the existing policies. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:WikiDan61: The 'pages' you link to are red links. The Verifiability policy actually says that "material added to Wikiversity pages" which "has been produced by scholarly research performed at Wikiversity" does not need to cite reliable sources under any circumstances whatsoever. The reliable sources policy says that reliable sources are not required if it is not possible to cite them (as in the case of original research). The original research policy expressly allows original research in express words. It actually says "Original research which meets the guidelines of this policy is permitted on Wikiversity." (See also v:Wikiversity:Research and the research guidelines on the multilingual hub which apply to all language editions of Wikiversity, here). If you don't believe me, ask at the colloquium. I have spent more than enough time on Wikiversity to know exactly what is and is not allowed there. As for the WMF bylaws, original research is "useful information" if it is 'good quality' original research, that is to say, as long as, at the very least, for example, it isn't clearly wrong (such as claiming that the Moon is made of cheese). That is why it is allowed on Wikiversity, and why we have to send it there when we are confronted with it on this project. The utility of information has nothing to do with the nature of the project on which it is present. It is an intrinsic property of the information. "Useful" means what is useful from the point of view of the WMF, who also run Wikiversity, not what is useful from the point of view of the Wikipedia community, who are only one small part of the WMF's Wikimedia 'project' (and the different WMF sites are all one project). James500 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The refs are to single random statements, the article itself can be written well with proper references as it is indeed a landmark case in Indian copyright law. However, in it's present state it's an unsourced opinion piece often moving into first person and does a disservice to readers in the current form. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is WP:OR. Wikipedia is an WP:ENC so has to come from published sources. AfD waits for nothing - if this is not trans-wiki'd before deletion then it can be undeleted, trans-wiki'd, and redeleted when someone requests it.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where in the rubric of AfD does it say "AfD waits for nothing"? I've never seen that there, and I don't support that idea. James500 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, that is simply total nonsense, as the rubric of AfD expressly says that "transwiki" is an acceptable outcome of AfD, and is an acceptable !vote. James500 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: An article with matching subject matter, structure, and problems, Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, was created by User:SeverusSnape07 just a day earlier than this one (I have started to wikify and source that one). May be a case of sock-puppetry or, more likely, result of some law school class exercise, in which case there may be other similar articles out there. I would vote weak delete unless someone takes up the task to bring up the article, on a notable subject, up to at least minimal wiki-standards while this AFD is open. Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have requested that this page be transwikied to Wikiversity with this edit at v:Wikiversity:Import. The page should not be deleted here before that request has been approved or rejected by a custodian there. I don't expect it to take more than a day. James500 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. The page has been transwikied to Gramophone Company of India Limited Vs. Shanti Films Corporation and others. James500 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2015 (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.