Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberBunker

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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CyberBunker

This article needs to be removed as we've revoked wikipedia the rights to use our trademarks after a series of incidents of our publication being changed, most of them questioning wether or not we would be a souvereign state or not (which is not up to anyone else except for us to decide), some even insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb3rob (talk • contribs)

• Keep; no compelling argument has been made. Wikipedia does not need the right to use your trademark in reference to the product or group which it refers to. See Xbox, for example - Xbox is a trademark of Microsoft, but we need not request Microsoft's permission to use the term. (Also note: This user has repeatedly blanked the page in question, violating WP:3RR, and moved it at one point to Removethisnow.) --Zetawoof 02:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as Zetawoof mentioned, no argument has been made to show any copyright/trademark violation. Cb3rob, you seem to have issue with the article being edited ("incidents of our publication being changed"), I could be wrong about that assumption. But, if that is an issue you have, please understand that once an article is added to Wikipedia, it is placed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows the article to be edited. - Akamad 08:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree that there is no given basis for the 'trademark' argument. However, this seems to have originated as a not particularly notable vanity page by the same editor who now wants it deleted. Is this content really relevant? --CBD ☎ ^✉ 14:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia must not give in to unfounded legal threats. Thus, whatever my opinion of the object's notability, I vote Keep as a matter of principle. Firebug 18:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, When publishing something under the GNU license, the orignal author still retains copyrights over it, and is free to license it or un-licence it under whatever kind of conditions he prefers in the future. As for the trademark issues: we do hold trademarks in the Netherlands, the Republic CyberBunker, and other countries on both 'CyberBunker' and 'CB3ROB'. Our problem with the whole wikipedia thing lies in the fact that people who have no authority over our territory whatsoever keep changing the article as if we would not be a souvereign state, which is the only 'vandalism' i can see in this whole scheme. We intend to keep changing this article, if nessesary with all computer force we posess, to either contain the facts as they are, or not be displayed at all. (The above unsigned comment and vandalism threat was made by User:80.126.178.93. All of its contributions, about a dozen in all, are to CyberBunker-related articles. As a suspected sockpuppet of User:Cb3rob, it should be disregarded, and blocked for legal threats and threats of vandalism. Firebug 18:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

No. When you contributed to Wikipedia, you agreed to allow the material to be used under the specified terms. You don't have the right to now demand it be removed. Nor do we need your permission to refer to a trademarked name for purposes of comment or criticism. Firebug 18:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be a pretty nice article. If there are claims of trademark infringement then sue wikipedia and the article's author. --Mecanismo 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: a decent article with a photo. Use of a trademark for educational and editorial purposes in an encyclopedia is fair use. Hu 20:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and consider blocking nominator for violation of no legal threats policy. FCYTravis 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the nominator's reasons aren't very good, but this isn't about a notable subject. Being a micronation isn't notable, and I can't find any verification for any of the things listed on the article. - Bobet 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic is notable although article needs cleanup. Jtmichcock 03:40, 11 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.