Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tassimo


 * 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 no consensus to delete, but it may still be deleted as a copyvio. Angr/ talk 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tassimo
Delete. brand name for coffee-maker, article reads like spam/ad. prod removed without explanation--Porturology 12:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Article does not meet the standards for notability set forth at WP:CORP. --CrypticBacon 14:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is notable because it meets the first criteria for inclusion for products and services: The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. DLC3172 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pokemon's a commercial product, too, and nobody's nominating it for deletion. Monicasdude 15:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement for product with about 650 Ghits - many for sites related to it. Note DLC3172 is the article creator.  Also the link in the article claiming to be unbiased is to the company website a site which claims to have no connection with the company - I see no way of checking that.     Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note http://www.tassimo-world.com is not the company web site. Read the text at the bottom of the site and note that the site claims not to be associated with the makers of the product. It is a site for Tassimo enthusiasts and provides unbiased information. The official web site is http://www.tassimodirect.com. Furthermore, this article is not an advertisement for a product. Look at the article for Kraft Foods. Many of Kraft's product brands have Wikipedia articles. This article is no exception. DLC3172 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note this is a second vote from the article's author.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  17:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note My mistake. I changed the vote to a note. DLC3172 17:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Monicasdude. Note no serious reason was given with the prod tag and no reason is required to remove a prod tag. -- JJay 18:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per above comments. Deckiller 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Copyvio, tagged as such. Slight rewording and the fact that the source isn't a commercial content provider are irrelevent. See Copyright FAQ. Melchoir 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So far we've got one keep because we haven't deleted pokemon, and two keep's per we haven't deleted pokemon? Anyway, despite the "Unbiased news and information about Tassimo" from www.tassimo-world.com I'd have to call this advertising and unencyclopedic unless sources provided. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's tagged as a CV right now, but I'd keep a legit article on the topic. Among other things, selling them was the featured task one week in "The Apprentice: Martha Stewart" (see The_Apprentice:_Martha_Stewart), and that probably counts as notable media coverage.  Until we get a non-copyvio article, Redirect to Kraft Foods, the parent company. -Colin Kimbrell 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I still insist that a rewording of information is not a copyright infringement. But, in any case, the author of the article is also the owner of the web site in question. So, no infringement. Somebody please remove the infringement notice. Also, if you are going to consider this "unencyclopedic", please proceed to delete the thousands of brand name articles on Wikipedia, including all the brand names mentioned in the Kraft Foods article, of which Tassimo is now one of DLC3172 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How can we verify that the article and the website were written by the same person? -Colin Kimbrell 18:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I quote from the very notice you wish to remove: "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation". Melchoir 19:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is quoted from Copyright FAQ: "Generally, a summary (or analysis) of something is not a derivative work, unless it reproduces the original in great detail, at which point it becomes an abridgement and not a summary". It's all very subjective. DLC3172 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right; there is a subjective element. I have compared and, and the latter does "reproduce the original in great detail". I'm sorry if you spent a lot of effort switching words, but it was a copyright infringement, and it must be removed. Melchoir 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you propose I do? Invent false information for the sole purpose of preventing the article from sounding like the web site? Or maybe I should switch sentence one with sentence three. Honestly, this is all becoming quite ridiculous. DLC3172 01:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You can use Wikipedia as something other than a mirror for a webpage. Use multiple sources, and don't copy anything. Summarize. If this isn't possible, the subject isn't notable enough anyway. Melchoir 02:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can anyone agree with me that a rewording of plain, factual information is not a copyright infringement? We're not talking about a rewording of a creative, artistic work mind you.  We are talking about basic, factual information. Anyway, if you want to confirm that the article author and the web site owner are the same person, send an E-mail to the contact listed on the web site and you will receive a confirmation. The whole copyright issue is a moot point, because you can't infringe on your own copyright! DLC3172 20:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No--Porturology 22:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No??? What kind of a response is that? Show a little respect for the people who are trying to contribute material to the encyclopedia. -- JJay 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If the original author places his work under GNU Free Documentation License it's no problem. Barring that, it is possible to "infringe on your own copyright" because you don't own the text once you hit save, Wikipedia does.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. It's the original author who reserves the copyright. Wikipedia doesn't inherit it once it gets submitted regardless of who submitted it. In fact, Wikipedia allows copyrighted material if the copyright holder gives permission. See Copyright problems: "Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia: If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion. It is sufficient to: Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication OR send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation". DLC3172 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just what I said, but in more words? The 100% soultion is GFDL, everything else is just a sticking plaster on an amputation.  Wouldn't a re-write be easier than all this wiki-lawyering?  And after all that, we don't seem to have established notability all that well... -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you said that it is possible for someone to infringe on their own copyright. I refuted that by quoting from Copyright problems. I'm not putting any GFDL statement on my web site. I'd rather just give Wikipedia permission to use my copyrighted material on their web site, even though I don't agree that my article would be in any way violating my web site's copyright if in fact the copyright wasn't owned by me in the first place. (Can this get any more ridiculous?) If someone would remove the copyright violation notice and the potential deletion notice I could actually resume working on the article again. DLC3172 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be pedantic, but it is possible to violate your own copyright. I pointed out the preferred way to avoid doing so, you pointed out another.  And, as the notice states, this isn't the venue to determine the outcome of a copyright challange. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  04:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder still has to grant permission in that email. Besides, this is all academic until such an email is sent. I'm guessing it hasn't been. Melchoir 02:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just sent it. DLC3172 02:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't see any activity at the Copyright problems entry. Are you sure you got it right? Melchoir 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I sent it to permissions at wikimedia dot org, as was instructed. I've done my part. DLC3172 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep assuming copyright issue is resolve. I type "tassimo" in google and I see 1,760,000 hits, with three sponsored links at the top of the page and eight at the side. Kappa 08:59, 7 March 2006 (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.