Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universidad Nacional del Callao
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Titoxd(?!?) 03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Universidad Nacional del Callao
Move to Spanish or appropriate language Wikipedia. Delete --AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Translate, cleanup, keep. seems like a notable Peruvian university. --Trovatore 07:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as a copyvio. It can be recreated later. -- Kjkolb 07:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- copyvio from where? If you have the URL you can tag it for speedy with {{db-copyvio}}. --Trovatore 07:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete it's copyvio from [1] 132.248.196.4 07:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it can be speedied because it is not from a commerical content provider - a company that sells the content that has been copied, like a newspaper or encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb
- Keep and cleanup. User Trovatore has translated this and I have added appropriate stub categories for Peru stub and university stub. The translation should alleviate the copyvio problem and I think the general concensus is to keep teartiary education institutions. Capitalistroadster 10:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the new version. -- Kjkolb 10:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep translation. Average Earthman 11:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Piccadilly 11:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep translation. CLW 15:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Probably still a copyvio. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you can get rid of copyright just by translating something. I'm not personally a big fan of copyright but I think we all understand that WP has to be careful about it. --Trovatore 16:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- I am a lawyer, and you can, Trovatore, as long as the translation is not verbatim. Facts themselves are not copyrightable. You translated the thing, so, if concerned, make your translation a bit "freer". Xoloz 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think your advice is appropriately cautious. Do you practice IP law? A translation is a derivative work, and copyright can still apply. This is explicitly stated in U.S. Title 17. A non-verbatim translation does not provide an end around copyright law. This article is very short and is limited to factual material and so provides very little opportunity "artistic expression" so it may be OK in this particular instance, but I think your suggestion is simply wrong in general. Quale 00:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Briefly, I'll remind you that it is the burden of the copyright holder to prove infringement. For an article of a small size, or for one -- like this one also -- whose nature is a bare recitation of essential details (as with a newspaper item in brief), the act of translating freely would obscure sufficiently the origin of the material such that proof of infringement would be practically impossible. You are correct, and I would never intend, to apply my advice to a novel, or even a poem, or any other substantially original work of any length. However, I maintain the value of proposition advanced for all translated, properly encyclopedic stubs. So, I suppose that my advice would be incautious if anyone were unfortunate enough to think that it applied to Wikibooks, Wikisource, or an extended analytic article here. Given the context, though, I'll stand behind my advice. If you care to continue this dispute, my talk page is always open. :) Xoloz 03:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think this is important, so I'll answer briefly here. You write, "Given the context, though, I'll stand by my advice." Here's the context:
- Probably still a copyvio. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you can get rid of copyright just by translating something [emphasis mine]. I'm not personally a big fan of copyright but I think we all understand that WP has to be careful about it. --Trovatore 16:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- And this is your response:
- I am a lawyer, and you can, Trovatore, as long as the translation is not verbatim. -- Xoloz 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- In context, your response says that you can get rid of copyright by translating something as long as the translation is not verbatim. This is simply not true. You are correct to point out that a recitation of facts is not copyrightable in the U.S. (caution may be needed here too, as I believe this is not the case in some other jurisdictions), but this has absolutely nothing to do with translation—translation is a red herring here. Your advice relied on unstated assumptions that are not true in general, even in the context of Wikipedia articles. If you meant to say that copyright shouldn't be a problem for this specific translation, you should have said so explicitly. I have seen translated pages on wikipedia that are likely copyvios, and I tagged one such just a few days ago. Quale 09:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Reply is on your talk page. Xoloz 14:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think this is important, so I'll answer briefly here. You write, "Given the context, though, I'll stand by my advice." Here's the context:
- This is now irrelevant in any case. I have made a number of edits to the English translation, if a few more editors write a few more lines of text, hardly anything of the original Spanish-language text will remain in any event.--Nicodemus75 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Briefly, I'll remind you that it is the burden of the copyright holder to prove infringement. For an article of a small size, or for one -- like this one also -- whose nature is a bare recitation of essential details (as with a newspaper item in brief), the act of translating freely would obscure sufficiently the origin of the material such that proof of infringement would be practically impossible. You are correct, and I would never intend, to apply my advice to a novel, or even a poem, or any other substantially original work of any length. However, I maintain the value of proposition advanced for all translated, properly encyclopedic stubs. So, I suppose that my advice would be incautious if anyone were unfortunate enough to think that it applied to Wikibooks, Wikisource, or an extended analytic article here. Given the context, though, I'll stand behind my advice. If you care to continue this dispute, my talk page is always open. :) Xoloz 03:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think your advice is appropriately cautious. Do you practice IP law? A translation is a derivative work, and copyright can still apply. This is explicitly stated in U.S. Title 17. A non-verbatim translation does not provide an end around copyright law. This article is very short and is limited to factual material and so provides very little opportunity "artistic expression" so it may be OK in this particular instance, but I think your suggestion is simply wrong in general. Quale 00:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I am a lawyer, and you can, Trovatore, as long as the translation is not verbatim. Facts themselves are not copyrightable. You translated the thing, so, if concerned, make your translation a bit "freer". Xoloz 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep translation. Xoloz 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep unless copyvio can be substantiated. Jesse 18:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is no longer copyvio. This is one of the significant universities in Lima, I have visited it. Irrespective of all other concerns, it deserves an article on WP. It should probably be moved to National University of Callao.--Nicodemus75 21:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just "Callao", or "The Callao"? --Trovatore 02:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is just "Callao". Callao is a technically an extra-provincial district in Peru, but in practice it is another suburb of the Greater Lima area.--Nicodemus75 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just "Callao", or "The Callao"? --Trovatore 02:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It seems main problems have been addressed, though some improvement is still needed. --rob 22:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- keep the translated one please we can always use the {{notenglish}} next time Yuckfoo 22:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as this is a post-secondary educational institution it is indisputably inherently notable. Silensor 07:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup and expand. Concur w/Silensor per noteability. KillerChihuahua 00:28, 16 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
