Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmenTFL

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; unedited since nomination with no assertions of permission, either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OmenTFL

OmenTFL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Appears to be a fairly minor role-playing game. Google gives 375 hits, of which about 21 are unique. There are no independent sources, making writing an article impossible. In addition, the majority of the article is quoted directly from the website [1], so there may be a copyright issue. Trebor 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Actually, on second thoughts, this might be speedyable under A7. Trebor 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• The quoted material is both workable under fair use, and the quotations are also supported by the copyright holders. Also there is a space there for players to imput their own independant critiques. Davou
  • Eh... the majority of the article is quoted from the source with very little critical/explanative commentary, and could be replaced with rewritten material. I fail to see how this falls under fair use. There's no indication anywhere in the article that the quotations are "supported" by copyright holders either, and the site's copyright policy mentions nothing to this effect either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't appear to be notable at all. The only reason I'm not deleting this as a copyvio is that I'm giving it a benefit of doubt and assuming there's a good explanation of this "support" from copyright holder. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• next chance I get to speak to the holders, I will have them establish a notice page on their website, and link to it... but untill then, This is well within the bounds of fair use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davou (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Um... it's abundantly clear this does not fall under fair use by any stretch of imagination. Ignoring headings and markup, I get roughly 230 words of original content vs. 1160 words of verbatim quoted text. To my best non-US-lawyer understanding, it fails all of the four criteria listed on the fair use article: purpose and character (in effect, we're not using the text for scholarly purposes here, just quoting it for the heck of it), nature (there's absolutely no reason not to go by broader copyright rules), amount and substantiality (majority of the content is copied and it's directly copying key portions of the original text without any justification whatsoever), and effect upon the work's value (even if finding a giant pile of money on the street indeed has a great effect upon your value, it's still not right to take it without any permission whatsoever). While getting the permission, can you also please provide documentation on the notability of the project, because that's even bigger factor here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:51, 13 January 2007 (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.