Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyfree

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 delete. Wizardman 15:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyfree

nn. It's just one website, no notable mentions outside. shreevatsa (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one outside link now. - Apotheon (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Reads like a Advertisment --Numyht (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to the phrasing, maybe you should edit it instead of just suggested it get deleted. This is a wiki, after all. - Apotheon (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a combination of WP:DICTDEF and advertising. TN‑X-Man 19:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable copyright topic since it differs from copyright, copyleft and public domain. Also greatly discussed on professional forums, and Wikipedia should be a place where professional researchers can find all the topics they want, as long as we can write an article not containing only pronunciation, etymology, meaning and usage and does not have author's original research (vital in all encyclopedias). --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "greatly discussed on professional forums" / "does not have author's original research" -- that is exactly the question here. This doesn't seem to be "greatly discussed" anywhere, professional or not. shreevatsa (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (I don't know if this is necessary: I'm the original nominator.) shreevatsa (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like half the "delete" votes consist of "I'm too lazy to edit the way it's presented." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotheon (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The question is not about the presentation, but about the topic itself. The concept of "copyfree" doesn't seem to notable anywhere, it is not even clearly different from permissive free software licenses (or even copyleft, depending on what "protects recipients of the material from such restrictions" is supposed to mean), and all of the article's text, as well as links to it on other pages, seems to have been added by just one user (which happens to be you, User:Apotheon). shreevatsa (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would suggest merge but I don't know where. This is a WP:NEOLOGISM and seems like promotion for the website noted. The information should go somewhere, but Free content is a mess, Copyleft is close but not close enough. We should definitely have a comprehensive article on Copyright alternatives that includes this, but this is no way to start. I cannot find a reasonable merge partner. As it stands, it is a neologism that fails to establish notability because there are no sources at all. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 20:21, 7 August 2008 (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.