- 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 redirect to Copyright. Seems like there is equal support for deletion or redirection, if fine tuning is needed it can happen at WP:RFD which is custom made for "redirect vs. nothing" decisions. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Copyright protection
- Copyright protection ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Effectively a WP:TWODABS page with a clear primary topic by historical importance, copyright. Reference to technology used to protect copyrights can be addressed in a hatnote. bd2412 T 00:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Also, "Copyright" gets about 30 times as many page views as "Copy protection". bd2412 T 00:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete without redirect. WP:RFD might have been a better venue, but never mind.
- I would not be shocked by a redirect to copyright, either, but if we do that, then we need a hatnote at the copyright article, which ( ceteris paribus) will slightly blot the page. I think it is one of the cases where deleting completely will save a bit on the hatnote, and not lose much (since a search result will easily point the reader to adequate articles). Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - This is not at all necessary. It essentially is copy protection which can clearly be linked to by the copyright article. It only means one of the two pages linked while having close ties with both. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 10:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to copyright as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and adjust the hatnote. This is a widely used phrase to refer to the protections that copyright confers upon the rights holder. [1] [2] [3] ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 14:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Not needed as a disambigation link. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to copyright per WP:CHEAP. It is a common phrase, and having the redirect could help in indexing. agtx 16:05, 16 October 2017 (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.
- 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 redirect to Copyright. Seems like there is equal support for deletion or redirection, if fine tuning is needed it can happen at WP:RFD which is custom made for "redirect vs. nothing" decisions. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Copyright protection
- Copyright protection ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Effectively a WP:TWODABS page with a clear primary topic by historical importance, copyright. Reference to technology used to protect copyrights can be addressed in a hatnote. bd2412 T 00:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Also, "Copyright" gets about 30 times as many page views as "Copy protection". bd2412 T 00:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete without redirect. WP:RFD might have been a better venue, but never mind.
- I would not be shocked by a redirect to copyright, either, but if we do that, then we need a hatnote at the copyright article, which ( ceteris paribus) will slightly blot the page. I think it is one of the cases where deleting completely will save a bit on the hatnote, and not lose much (since a search result will easily point the reader to adequate articles). Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - This is not at all necessary. It essentially is copy protection which can clearly be linked to by the copyright article. It only means one of the two pages linked while having close ties with both. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 10:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to copyright as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and adjust the hatnote. This is a widely used phrase to refer to the protections that copyright confers upon the rights holder. [1] [2] [3] ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 14:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Not needed as a disambigation link. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to copyright per WP:CHEAP. It is a common phrase, and having the redirect could help in indexing. agtx 16:05, 16 October 2017 (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.