Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limitations on copyrightability: Ideas and facts vs. expression; merger doctrine; scènes à faire in IP law in Canada


 * 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. Last merge !vote rationale was that they use Wikipedia as a source for legal advice. Wikipedia, and the editors editting it, are not licensed law practitioners (for the most part) and are not a source for legal advice and do not replace real lawyers. Using that rationale for keeping this article is unfathomable. I have no bias against school projects, but they need to conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Per the delete arguments below, this is essntially WP:SYNTHESIS. I cannot in good faith userfy this article because sources have not been provided proving this is not synthesis and I fear moving into userspace will essentially become a web host. The article creator can email me for a copy of the article. v/r - TP 01:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Limitations on copyrightability: Ideas and facts vs. expression; merger doctrine; scènes à faire in IP law in Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an essay, an exercise in original research and synthesis that is not appropriate as a WP article. I do not believe this can be salvaged into something workable, even with a complete rewrite and a move to a more appropriate title.  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The author has claimed on his talk page that
 * This article is for a class at the U of T law school as part of some wiki project at the university it is by its nature more academic than a real wiki.
 * Clearly they have misunderstood the use of Wikipedia as part of a school project. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I thought the whole idea of student projects here was to teach students about Wikipedia; not simply to provide free hosting. &mdash; RHaworth 21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. 3 reasons. One, it has a crap title. Two, it looks like a copyvio or student project. Three, It lacks notability. Therefore, deletion is recommended. James1011R (talk, contribs - Visit The Forge) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. 21:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for your responses. This student is a participant in the Canadian arm of the Global Education Program. We will be encouraging students learning about WP to work in their sandboxes first. This material will likely be moved in the next day or so, or perhaps the student will revise. Let's give them a day or so to figure this out. In any event, thank you for your quick responses to this issue. Jaobar (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Potentially a decent article topic, but a rewrite would have to start by erasing everything here, so we don't help a future writer by keeping this content.  Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been vastly cleaned up from its original nominated version. Unfortunately, it still relies directly on case law for references, and thus any conclusions about the applicability of those cases to any other case has to be considered synthesis.  Again, while such synthesis is appropriate, even encouraged, in academic writing, it has no place in Wikipedia.  Should the author get this article published in a peer-reviewed law journal, than that peer-reviewed article could serve as a reliable source for an article on Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added references to a standard commercial legal text which repeats the boiler plate assertions I made regarding the doctrines in question. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. The text is partially online at google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=_cvrqbjUckIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. User:Gloominary —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep The fact that this was written as part a law school project is not a sufficient excuse for deleting it. Despite WikiDan61's entirely personal POV that this is original research. Case law is entirely appropriate for this kind of article. If inappropriate conclusions are drawn from that fact they can be handled by editing and not by heavy-handed deletion. We in Wikimedia Canada would certainly encourage more of this kind of activity, and would prefer that such new editors not be cut off at the knees. Doing so only serves to keep the number of Wikipedia editors down. I will bring this to the attention of other Canadians for comment. Eclecticology (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Copyright law of Canada. There's no reason for splitting this subject matter off from its base article, which would benefit from the added content and case law references.  While it still reads like an essay, it has some references (more are needed), so IMO it's salvageable.  PK  T (alk)  12:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Copyright law of Canada. I come to Wikipedia for legal advice. Would do well merged into the mentioned article. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a merger at this stage. In the longer term, there would be great benefit to developing this entire topic area to the same extent as it is now developed for US law. Eclecticology (talk) 19:02, 27 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.