Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privacy in facebook

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. As the author of the article admits that this is the work of more than one person for college, the copyright would be either retained by the college (who have not granted permission for it to be used) or with all the authors (and only the one author has 'granted' permission for it to be used). By its very nature, this is OR. Although this is numerically a close call, the copyright problems and OR sways the decision in favour of deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy in facebook

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Author admits this was written by a group as a College paper [1] so likely breach of WP:COPYVIO. Also breaches WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NOTOPINION. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Privacy in facebook" and "Privacy on facebook" are both very plausible search terms. Both need to redirect to a new section of Criticism of Facebook, which should be Criticism of Facebook#Privacy. Per WP:PRESERVE, the reliable sources in this article must not be removed from Wikipedia, though they might reasonably be merged or placed on the talk page for Criticism of Facebook for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until Merge as per S Marshall. This information shouldn't be lost just because of categorical impatience. Moloch09 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't quite say we should keep the material. What I said was that we must keep the reliable sources. On whether the material is kept, I'm agnostic.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE - with re-writing, it could become an encyclopedic article. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that this appears to be a copy of a written product by multiple individuals (initial edit summary by article creator: "i and my class mates create this as our academic assignment at Orebro university , Sweden"), I think WP:COPYRIGHT is a valid concern. As a group project, it would require everyone's approval to license this work appropriately, a task I'm not sure is particualrly feasible or worth doing. Thus, deletion seems the most reasonable route. I agree that it's a plausible search term, however, and a redirect to Criticism of Facebook should definitely be left in its place; a future sub-article on this topic isn't unreasonable. As for the sources, I don't see much that seems too obviously useful, but I'd be willing, on request, post-deletion, to move citations & links to Talk:Criticism of Facebook that might be relevant. — Scientizzle 21:08, 7 June 2010 (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.