Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish-Argentines

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: listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead. — sjorford (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish-Argentines

Nothing wrong with the topic, but this text is taken, without explicit permission, from http://www.nordicway.com/argentina.htm. It has had a copyvio tag added and removed twice, because one user claims that "if the website doesn't publicy state the copyright the article can be on Wikipedia" (see Talk:Swedish-Argentines). Another user seems to be convinced by that claim and has removed the tag again today. Tupsharru 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No vote yet. My understanding of copywrite law is very, very slim, but that it is understood unless the express release of material for public use; it is to be assumed for domain space and bulk text? T K E 06:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't tell whether you are saying it is or is not copyrighted. Anyway U.S. copyright law as well as copyright law for countries abiding by the Berne convention / TRIPs agreement (including every country in the WTO), says that all work is BY DEFAULT COPYRIGHTED, even without any kind of registration or explicit notice of copyright. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-09 07:36Z
    • Yes, by default is what I thought. Thanks. T K E 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, this is normally handled at WP:CP (this happens every day). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-09 07:38Z
    • I know that. As I pointed out in the nomination, a couple of users are not allowing the copyvio tag to remain, claiming that WP:CP does not apply. Sorry if I was unclear about that. Tupsharru 07:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a copyright violation. The article is taken from here and the reason given for its removal is that there is no copyright notice. However, a copyright notice is not necessary for material to be covered under copyright. -- Kjkolb 14:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We can do better. Plagiarizing is never a good thing, even if there's no copyright problems. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Copyvio ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• I have reverted to the copyvio notice. Nobody has yet provided any evidence that the original author has explicitly permitted Wikipedia to copy this text under the GFDL. Further discussion should take place on either WP:CP or the article's talk page. Wikipedia takes copyright protection seriously, whatever some people might say. — sjorford (talk) 09:37, 10 April 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.