Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopimist


 * 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 redirect. History is preserved if anyone wants to merge content. W.marsh 16:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kopimist

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. There are only 60 unique hits in Google, and most don't seem to be in English. WP:NEO requires sources talking about the term, not just those using it. This would be a appropriate article, but only once the term gains mainstream acceptance. eaolson 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO; also has POV issues in naming various high-profile organisations as "opponents" of Kopimism. Walton monarchist89 18:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . Neologism being promoted by an anti-copyright group.  If you want Urban Dictionary, you know where to find it.  --Dennisthe2 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Merge and Redirect to The Pirate Bay]. Honestly, the new references added don't help - a recording of a video on youtube, a blog, and a press release, along with another reference.  We need something a bit more independent here.  The explanation of the term Kopimist won't stand on its own, and is very much POV here - but a clean up and merge might give it something better. --Dennisthe2 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The youtube video was a copy of the broadcast on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's show, The Hour. The CBC is the oldest broadcasting service in Canada, its not some bloggers home video. ZyMOS 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but we need more than one reliable source here. If there are others, put them in - but what we have is either insufficiently notable or simply insufficient. --Dennisthe2 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This is  not a neologisms, the term is well defined in article, and is not ambiguously used by others, ism, or ist is not added to word for undue weight on a root word,  This is not original research, i don't belong to any of the orgs, and actually dont fully agree with them, so im not self promoting.  I wrote more than a definition, it clearly does not reads a dictionary entry. I will add more sources, because you are correct. It needs to be cited as more than a word in an article.
 * Make that well over 10 separate articles including an interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation The Hour ZyMOS 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Popular usage: It is true this is not commonly used, however that is not good reason for deletion.  It is not an ambitious term.  It is not used by a single group,  I found 4 seprete news sources using kopimist in their articles.  All independent from each other, all unaffiliated with the organizations, and they are not blogs
 * Make that well over 10 separate articles including an interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation The Hour, try searching kopimist and kopimists ZyMOS 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * POV issue: Yes the list of opponents is long and well noted.  I will actually delete them.  Although it is obvious that they would oppose this philosophy, they have not specifically commented on komimists.
 * self Promotion: As i said, i am not affiliated with any of them at all.  The word is used by multiple anti-copyright groups and is used by other sources to describe them, including opponents.  Also this term is used to refer to a people with an ideology, so inherently  it is promoted/used by those people.  Scientology promoted by Scientologists, anarchy promoted by anarchists, etc
 * I think i have made a sufficient argument for keeping this article ZyMOS 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's notable, don't put it here, put it in the article! --Dennisthe2 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, I have now done just that. ZyMOS 00:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, see also Articles for deletion/Kopimi. (This isn't recreated content, though, so not eligible for speedy.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect LazyDaisy 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per Dennisthe2 - Aagtbdfoua 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have merged the relevant data to the pirate bay as suggested, however i still think there is significant information in this article. I have added a significant amount of sources. 6 sources, and 8 relevant links.  This is much more than most wikipedia articles.  I believe I have made a valid argument for each of the complaints on this page, or i have corrected them.  So i don't think this should be deleted.
 * And on a more personal note. I dont understand the opposition to new information being added to wikipedia just because it is not commonly know.  If a word is used by more than a small isolated group of people it should be acceptable.  Local bands, high schools, small companies, towns, mayors, etc should all be acceptable.  If it can make it into the news whether local or global, it should be acceptable.  Wikipedia should not be so picky about what is acceptable information and what is not.  I knew about mp3s before most of the world knew of them, no one i knew was aware of them. so should i have kept it secret until it made it on cnn. If Fraunhofer had written an article would it be self-promoting, and for quick deletion. If somebody wants to know what a kopimist is they should be able to find it on wikipedia.(i have found a couple of forums were people have asked that very question)  I am an archivist and have archived about 100,000 datasheets at archive.org most of those chip are almost completely unknown and very few if any care about them.  But lost information is a terable thing.  At least in my opinion.  ZyMOS 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So i think i have met all the criterion for an article on wikipedia that is required by their rules and guidelines.
 * ZyMOS 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The term "kopimist" or "kopimi" doesn't seem to appear on the piratebay website you linked to, even on their "About" page. Therefore, it's not a source for the term. On the kopimi.com site you linked to, there's just a public domain logo. Nothing about the "information wants to be free" philosophy the article mentions. The Urban Dictionary definition for "kopimi" just says that it means something can be copied. Basically, it seems to be a logo signifying that something is in the public domain. Again, nothing about this philosophy. Furthermore, Urban Dictionary isn't generally considered a reliable source. The no-war-against-ladonia.blogspot.com talks about "Kopimists" but never really defines the term. Again, blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. From WP:NFT:
 * School crazes, fads, and fashions can end up covered in Wikipedia, but only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Such resources are reliable, and therefore the subject can become eligible for Wikipedia.
 * OK, it's talking about fads and fashions there, but the same can be extended to new words that no one outside of a very small group is using. WP:NEO specifically says that it's necessary to have a source talking about the term, not just using it, before an article is appropriate for inclusion in WP. eaolson 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * http://no-war-against-ladonia.blogspot.com cites a long definition and history, over 10 news independed sources cite the word, the work if coined by the creator of a website the gets of 4million hits a day, it is used by multiple groups. and is quoted by multiply people, there is a book about it. and since the spirit bay is swedish most of the pages about kopimists. http://www.piratbyran.org/copyme/ is the original and political page of the pirate bay, but its in Swedish so i cant cite it, because i cant read it, but it is clear they are talking about it.  The page is about kopimists not kopime, that page is cited only in that portion. not the main artical.  It is not in academic papers but i would imagine 90% of wikipedia articles do not have them as sources.  Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source that is why i have multiple other sources to back the definition up.  Kopimi is relevent because multiple sources describe that as the origin, so its would inproper to not mention that.  http://no-war-against-ladonia.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-kopimists-conquered-internets-and.html, http://www.kopimi.com/kopimi/ , http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kopimi all talk about the term not just use it. It is true that not all the sources are reliable.  But many are and all pages confirm that same thing.  It is true that many of the sources are  self serving, but is would be improper to not cite them and many of the the sources are not self serving.  So i think i covered all the arguments listed about.  But even if all my arguments are bunk, whats the harm in having more information.  It the word gets more popular them more will be added.  if it doesnt is remains a small unpopular article for anyone that wants to know about it. ZyMOS 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Appearing on blogspot does not constitute notability, and using kopimi.com for a source...well, it's not third party. My !vote stands. While you note your sources aren't reliable, please note that in order to be included here, your sources must, regardless, thusly be reliable.  --Dennisthe2 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to The Pirate Bay Mufunyo 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If you don't know anything, it doesn't mean that kopimi doesn't exist. And TPB is supporter of kopimi, not kopimi itself. 193.219.93.218 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources, nonnotable neologism. Sandstein 13:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * O well, looks like I loose, its a pity. i am going to merge and redirect as subjected.  I hate to see all the other pages deleted due to the excuses above, but democracy is as democracy does ZyMOS 03:27, 6 February 2007 (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.