Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweat of the brow


 * 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 Keep. Closing early: this article has been entirely rewritten and now only bears a passing resemblance to the nominated article. No delete votes other than the nominator's. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweat of the brow

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is little more than an unref'd definition. 99DBSIMLR 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, very weakly. No, it isn't very good at all.  But this is not about the ordinary English meaning of the phrase "sweat of the brow"; it is about a concept existing in European (?) "intellectual property" (i.e. monopoly-franchise) law, whereunder pure effort in compiling unoriginal data may give rise to monopoly rights; it contrasts with U.S. copyright law, which requires at least a smidgen of originality.  This text would not be wholly useless to someone who wanted to write a better article on the topic. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you see an unreferenced article such as this, go and find references, such as McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property page 428, yourself and make the article better. Deletion is not Cleanup, and is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sure, the English in the article isn't so good but the subject matter is valid and doesn't warrant deletion.  --Interesdom 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an important and notable concept in copyright law, and a major difference between US law and the law of most countries in Europe. Needs improvement, not deletion. DES (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done some cleanup and wikification. DES (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Even though this article contains some mistakes in couple sentences, just needs to be improved. This article is extremely important in copyright law. Daniel    5127  02:38, 30 May 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.