Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Pills Die Records


 * 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 of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Take Pills Die Records
Non-notable Internet-based record label with no notable artists. Voting delete, but note that there are many places that User:Takepills has listed the label, including a bunch of duplicates of this article that I have turned into redirects. Also note that the article text is copied from here, though I didn't want to copyvio it, since it would leave almost nothing on the page. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-21 04:50:01Z
 * Delete per nom. PJM 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (Speedy) Delete copyvio. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 05:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with copyvio speedy: seems to be all the user's own work, which seems to be CreativeCommons ShareAlike licensed (see comments at Image:Takepillsdie.jpg. It looks more like vanity to me, but anyway, delete as non-notable. Kusma (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, I also disagree. Archive.org seems to have copied from the record label's website, so they'd be the ones violating copyright. Also, speedy delete for copyright violations only applies to commercial content providers (unforunately) and Archive.org is not such a provider. -- Kjkolb 07:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how archiving the entire internet can be a copyvio. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahem! Internet World Wide Web Uncle G 10:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, what were those links meant to point out? -- Kjkolb 13:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That if an organization is "archiving the entire internet", copyright concerns aren't its only problem. &#9786; Uncle G 16:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. After doing some research on the organization it seems like its high on the list, though. -- Kjkolb 06:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know if it they are violating copyright laws. It was being suggested that the music label was violating copyright on material they created themselves, but if anybody involved in this nomination was, it "would" be the Internet Archive, which is why I said "they'd" as in "they would". I was not claiming that they were violating copyright. Since they remove material upon request, perhaps no one has bothered to take them to court to find out one way or another. -- Kjkolb 13:12, 21 November 2005 (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.