Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proponent

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proponent

Blatant dictdef.-- malathion ^talk 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make a copyright violation? --Lucavix 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Copyvio? CanadianCaesar 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Two Objections: More could had been added to the article. Also how can a definition be copyrighted? --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could be transwikied, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that wiktionary already has this. -R. fiend 01:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if not already on Wikitionary, transwiki. and CanadianCaesar: err.. what exactly is it a copyvio from? Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just reading it, it looks like a copyvio, and in fact, it is. [1] CanadianCaesar 02:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It can not be a copyright violation if it is only a definition. --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - After re-reading the article (the "the dictionary definition of..." is a dead giveaway) and a bit of googling, I have come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, a copyvio. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please describe how giving a dictionary definition is a violation of a copyright. --Lucavix 00:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the dic def and leave the space open for anyone who wants to write a real article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- How does starting an article with a dictionary definition prevent people from adding anything they want to it? I had a series of contributions for the article including examples of political proponents. --Lucavix 23:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

move it to dictionaryDemodike 08:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary already has proponent, and had it for 4 months before this copyright violation even existed. Please check Wiktionary before nominating things to be transwikied there. Uncle G 15:51:46, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  - how do you know this is a copyvio? Is it a copy from a dictionary? What dictionary? Is this considered a copyvio too? If yes, then why they have no legal problems for caching copyrighted documents, and wikipedia has? Demodike 10:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - We know that it is a copyvio from the discussion immediately above. As for your final question, please read the prominent bold notice that is below the text entry field on every edit page, and our copyright policy. Wikipedia is not a "cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents". Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Uncle G 16:33:19, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
    - Objection: We do not infact know that it is a copyright violation. In fact, since definitions can not be copyrighted, it can not be a copyright violation and every dictionary seems to have the exact definition in question. Futhermore many articles are listed on Wikipedia, that are in fact copyrighted, including quotes from magazines and the results of various studies, but they are not presented in such a way as to take credit for the studies and sources are typically given. I would argue since the dictionary is given as a source and no one took credit for the definition, it is impossible for it to be a copyright violation. --Lucavix 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not carefully. It is NOT mentioned there that Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. I think you are not authorized to tell what wikipedia is not, only "Wikipedia_is_not" official policy is. So either "Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents, like search engines are." quote must be added to the official policy, or otherwise wikipedia may be consider by some wikipedians, among other things, also as a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. Of course cached copyrighted documents must be locked with the help of an admin, to protect the copyright and prevent changes to the document, similar to what all internet search engines are doing to their cached copyright documents (search engines readers are not allowed to edit cached copyrighted document). On the other hand, discussion on a cached copyrighted document must be allowed. Cached copyrighted documents may be considered encyclopaedic too, so they also have a place to a free encyclopaedia. Am I wrong somewhere? Demodike 17:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I refer you a second time to our official copyright policy, adding that our copyright stance is a foundation issue (unlike WP:WIN, which only applies to Wikipedia alone) and non-negotiable. Uncle G 18:51:45, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
        
        Provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted. --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia seems to be a free encyclopedia, NOT an encyclopedia enslaved to GFDL license. Thats why other licenses are also allowed here, although, most of the times, not in the main articles space but in users' pages. The existence of many other licenses in many wikipedians users pages is against the GFDL foundation issue argument of yours, which is also supposed to apply to Wikimedia projects in general and not to wikipedia encyclopedia specifically. Wikipedia, having many different types of licenses in many user pages, seems to be an exception of the GFDL foundation issue. For example, have a look at the homepage of a wikipedia administrator which agrees with Dual Licensing instead of having a single GFDL. As you can see, the userpages of wikipedians are already free from the GFDL slavery. One step beyond, lets free article space from GFDL dictatorship too, and let cached copyrighted documents to reside (for legal reasons only as protected ones) in the main article space, along with the rest GFDL licensed articles. And as long as wikipedia does not comply accurately to the foundation issues, give to the encyclopedic articles having any other license the chance to become wikipedian articles.
        
        And here is another argument showing that wikipedia does not comply to the foundation issues. According to the third foundation issue, "The wiki process is the final authority on article content". If wiki process is the final authority on article content then why locking or protecting pages is allowed here?
        
        Could you also please tell us what is the exact copyright violation here? You accuse that there is a copyvio here, without pointing to the exact copyrighted document! If it is a dictionary copyvio, please tell us its name and its ISBN number. Accusing a text of beeing copyvio without pointing to the exact copyrighted document, this gives everybody the right and the reason to revert your copyvio accusation.Demodike 19:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        from here. and if it's not explicitly CC'd, GFDL'd, or PD'd, it's safe to say that it's not any of those Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        In that case the content of "proponent" article should not be deleted but rather protected and marked as a cached document of an unknown license. It shall stay in this state until someone proposes (in the discussion area of the article) a different content that can be safely considered as non identical to the cached document. Demodike 07:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Objection: No one actually owns the definition of a word, and all kinds of use the exact same definitions. Also providing a factual definition is not a violation of a copyright but a reporting of the facts as they stand --Lucavix 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Erm, Hosterweis, that exact same definition is also in the webster and the msn dictionary, did they commit all commit copyright violations against eachother. Well, I would say No because Definitions can NOT be copyrighted.--Lucavix 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{wi}} once deleted. Alphax ^τεχ 02:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid Suggestion. --Lucavix 23:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - How exactly do you figure? Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is it not invalid? Assert a positive to negate my negative. --Lucavix 12:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would had liked to contribute to the artice, giving examples of proponents of various things, but since someone suggested a copyright violation even though the definitions of words can not be copyrighted, it seems I can not. Oh, and to that special someone, MSN, Google, and Dictionary.com all share the same definition. Gee, are they all committing copyright violations against eachother? Can you even provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted? Since the US Supreme Court and the patient office both seem to dismiss attempts to copyright any definitions (typically by corporations like Microsoft) I highly doubt it. --Lucavix 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can still contribute to the article. I think the problem is not article's title, but article's content. Someone accused the content of beeing copyvio, and we are trying to find out whether the text contained inside the article is copyrighted or not. On the other hand "proponent" may be considered to be a word and not an article. If it is a word then according to policy (wikipedia is not a dictionary) both the content and the article title should be moved to wiki dictionary. Of course some names can be both articles and dictionary words. For example, have a look at the words apple or Beautiful or Supporter which can be found both here, and to wikidictionary. Demodike 06:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Google just pulls dictionary information by spidering and caching pages (which is why many times Wikipedia articles are found using the define: operator). And also, if the dictionary from which the content was ~~stolen~~ borrowed was made by a private corporation, and its contents not explicity licensed under Creative Commons, the GNU FDL, or put into the public domain, it is grounds for a {{copyvio}}}. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that all internet search engines that pull (and show) information by spidering and caching pages are illegal and guilty for copyright violations? If this is the case, then why they are still operational? Demodike 06:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you'd look at the message I was responding to, you'd see that I'm backing up Google. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering to my first question. Could you please answer to my second question too? Supposing that all internet search engines that pull (and show) information by spidering and caching pages are illegal and guilty for copyright violations, then why they are still operational? And I have another question now. Internet search engines are caching for at least 10 years billion of billions of pages, and, as far as I know, they have not yet any serious legal problem. Do you think that wikipedia will be in danger if (and supposing that the content of "proponent" article is really a copyvio) we decide to keep, cache and protect the page instead of deleting it?Demodike 06:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia has quite a stricter copyright policy than most search engines, pretty much just to be on the safe side. And actually, many search engines (read: Google) have been slapped around a bit with C&Ds, not only for copyright stuff (and the DMCA), but for other things such as providing a medium for such content to spread. Here's some examples:

There. can we please delete this article now? It's not as if it was even particularly good, anyway. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a minor question, what does someone vote if they do not want it deleted? I would also like to note that a few of the votes to delete gave reasons which have been debunked (such as the transwiki argument). --Lucavix 00:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They would vote keep. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary definition. Proponent seems to be a particular term in environmental policy. See the article temp page for a stub. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 04:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why not revert instead of delete? You want to delete it because you think that the text is a copyvio? And why you want to delete from wikipedia copyrighted documents that can be found on internet ? Do you believe that its better for copyrighted documents (that can be found on internet) to be deleted rather than preserved in history as cached documents? Let me remind you that all internet search engines are caching and showing copyrighted documents (that can be found on internet) without having any serious legal problems. Why wikipedia community cannot do the same? Demodike 09:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: Is there issue here rather or not the definition is copyrighted (and since the definition of a word can not be copyrighted in the United States I highly doubt that it is) or rather or not it violates the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy? Futhermore, why can a dictionary definition not be given as the basic introduction to an article that may well be expanded? Unfortunately rather or not I can make any contributions hinges on rather or not this article is deleted, were the article left alone it may have well expanded to far more than just a definition (If I had my way for example). --Lucavix 12:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. It is a nice idea a dictionary definition to be given as the basic introduction to an article that may well be expanded. I have read many other articles which refer to the meaning and etymology of the article title, so why not this one too? But let me object that we should also move the current text to wikidictionary. as long as the current definition in wikidictionary is deficient. Demodike 13:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.