Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Einsidler/Some argue




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. harej 00:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Einsidler/Some argue
this is a copyright violation of the article of the same name from ED. I'd love to see it stay; it's clever. I'd also like to see WP be copyright compliant; if anyone can give me a good reason to keep it, great. Otherwise CV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator must first tell us what page specifically and what copyright it violates.  In the absence of a complaint from the copyright owner, the onus is on the nominator to substantiate the allegation.  I do not want to browse "ED" looking for evidence. This page is likely an acceptable fair use, and if not, should be edited further to make it copyright compliant.  It is relevant to the project for educational purposes, some argue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the onus is on the person arguing that it is not copyrighted. Unless a page states otherwise, in the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are operated, it is copyrighted. And WP:FAIRUSE explicitly states this doesn't apply. Now if you can prove otherwise, like I've said above, I'd love to keep the text. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the ED source? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I googled for myself. No, it is not a copyright violation.  It is not a derivative of a single source.  It is similar, based on the same facts, but not a copyright violation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I trust SmokeyJoe on it not being a copyvio for sure! Collect (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Not been convinced it is a copyvio, and it's worth having. SmokingNewton (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.