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.
Wikipedia is
not a directory. The list consists of a bunch of websites of non notable repositories. More of a project for Wikiversity
Ajf773 (
talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:reply
Keep - Looking at the two policies that would seem to apply,
WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and
WP:Directory (specifically, points 1, 4 and 7), I don't this really violates those. These are lists of open repositories of information. I wouldn't call that "loosely associated topics" in any way. They are pointers to other reference materials. My take is that the policies are designed to prevent business listings, pure statistics, current events listings, and the like. While we need to be careful with the criteria, I feel this topics are acceptable for an encyclopedia.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm struggling to understand how Croatia is different? The nature of the list is exactly the same, lists of websites where each list entry has no established notability, not even mentioned in most of the educational institutes either.
Ajf773 (
talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Earwig thinks Croatia are different enough, but on eyeballing it would also be a list copyright violation.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 10:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Reason 3: The wikified, sortable list is
fair use of OpenDOAR's information, since the new list in Wikipedia is meant to provide context about both open access and each host institution in India. In contrast, the "heart" of OpenDOAR is its
extensive data about individual repositories. The wikified list does not focus on detail of repositories, but simply gives names and URLs. --
Oa01 (
talk) 13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
— Note to closing admin:
Oa01 (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD.
*
facepalm*. The CC BY-NC-SA licenses are incompatible with the CC BY-SA licenses. The BY-NC-SA 3.0 license has a "ShareAlike" clause too (hence, BY-NC-SA), which requires all derivatives to use the same license. BY-NC-SA =/= BY-SA. --
stranger195(
talk •
contribs •
guestbook) 13:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
But the list here is a
derivative work, and therefore
not a copyright violation. --
Oa01 (
talk) 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The SA with NC, means that the derivatives have to also include the -NC. So posting it here claiming that NC does not apply is a copyright infringement. It may not be an infringement to put it on Wikipedia, but claiming the wrong license makes it so.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Regardless of how you feel about any copyvio, all of the lists in this AfD are a clear example of
what Wikipedia is not.
Ajf773 (
talk) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
For Reason 1: Clearly a derivative of BY-NC-SA must also be BY-NC-SA, otherwise everyone can crop a BY-NC-SA picture and make commercial use of it. Since BY-NC-SA is not a compatible license on Wikipedia, we cannot use this material. For Reason 2:
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so other lists cannot be used as an rationale per se. The other lists are may or may not be
WP:CIL and
WP:NOTDIR. This one is. --
Muhandes (
talk) 09:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete India. WP:NOTDIR. Also content will eternally fail the inclusion criteria
WP:CSC so list would just be a blank page.
Cesdeva (
talk) 18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete all these pages are just replications of the information available at
http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php . While they appear up to date now (all created on 1st of April), I can't see how they will stay concurrent with the source data. The OpenDOAR wiki page exists as an entry point to this database.
Teraplane (
talk) 22:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. However, if it is a suitable project for Wikiversity, deletion should wait until it's moved there.
Cambalachero (
talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
No opinoin, but not a copyright vio I do not see any copyright violation. It is okay to copy lists like this, even if there is a claim of copyright, when the information is not eligible for copyright. A "list of obvious things by region" is not copyrightable because it is a statement of facts. If the list were "recommended things by region" or a matter of someone's choice rather than fact, then it could be copyrighted. Wikipedia does not have clear policy on list like this. However, all of this information can go into Wikidata, and each of these organizations can have a Wikidata item. Although the functionality does not exist now in Wikipedia, I think that soon somehow Wikimedia projects will make it much easier for anyone to generate and share lists of things like if they are in Wikidata. I recommend considering Wikidata as a place for this regardless of Wikipedia.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per WP:SAL, these don't seem to fit the stand-alone list criteria.
Natureium (
talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete all I don't see why we should copy lists maintained by others, copyvio or not. This kind of linkfarms is also being added to other articles (see for example
Open access in Italy). --
Randykitty (
talk) 22:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
Wikipedia is
not a directory. The list consists of a bunch of websites of non notable repositories. More of a project for Wikiversity
Ajf773 (
talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:reply
Keep - Looking at the two policies that would seem to apply,
WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and
WP:Directory (specifically, points 1, 4 and 7), I don't this really violates those. These are lists of open repositories of information. I wouldn't call that "loosely associated topics" in any way. They are pointers to other reference materials. My take is that the policies are designed to prevent business listings, pure statistics, current events listings, and the like. While we need to be careful with the criteria, I feel this topics are acceptable for an encyclopedia.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm struggling to understand how Croatia is different? The nature of the list is exactly the same, lists of websites where each list entry has no established notability, not even mentioned in most of the educational institutes either.
Ajf773 (
talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Earwig thinks Croatia are different enough, but on eyeballing it would also be a list copyright violation.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 10:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Reason 3: The wikified, sortable list is
fair use of OpenDOAR's information, since the new list in Wikipedia is meant to provide context about both open access and each host institution in India. In contrast, the "heart" of OpenDOAR is its
extensive data about individual repositories. The wikified list does not focus on detail of repositories, but simply gives names and URLs. --
Oa01 (
talk) 13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
— Note to closing admin:
Oa01 (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD.
*
facepalm*. The CC BY-NC-SA licenses are incompatible with the CC BY-SA licenses. The BY-NC-SA 3.0 license has a "ShareAlike" clause too (hence, BY-NC-SA), which requires all derivatives to use the same license. BY-NC-SA =/= BY-SA. --
stranger195(
talk •
contribs •
guestbook) 13:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
But the list here is a
derivative work, and therefore
not a copyright violation. --
Oa01 (
talk) 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The SA with NC, means that the derivatives have to also include the -NC. So posting it here claiming that NC does not apply is a copyright infringement. It may not be an infringement to put it on Wikipedia, but claiming the wrong license makes it so.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Regardless of how you feel about any copyvio, all of the lists in this AfD are a clear example of
what Wikipedia is not.
Ajf773 (
talk) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
For Reason 1: Clearly a derivative of BY-NC-SA must also be BY-NC-SA, otherwise everyone can crop a BY-NC-SA picture and make commercial use of it. Since BY-NC-SA is not a compatible license on Wikipedia, we cannot use this material. For Reason 2:
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so other lists cannot be used as an rationale per se. The other lists are may or may not be
WP:CIL and
WP:NOTDIR. This one is. --
Muhandes (
talk) 09:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete India. WP:NOTDIR. Also content will eternally fail the inclusion criteria
WP:CSC so list would just be a blank page.
Cesdeva (
talk) 18:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete all these pages are just replications of the information available at
http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php . While they appear up to date now (all created on 1st of April), I can't see how they will stay concurrent with the source data. The OpenDOAR wiki page exists as an entry point to this database.
Teraplane (
talk) 22:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. However, if it is a suitable project for Wikiversity, deletion should wait until it's moved there.
Cambalachero (
talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
No opinoin, but not a copyright vio I do not see any copyright violation. It is okay to copy lists like this, even if there is a claim of copyright, when the information is not eligible for copyright. A "list of obvious things by region" is not copyrightable because it is a statement of facts. If the list were "recommended things by region" or a matter of someone's choice rather than fact, then it could be copyrighted. Wikipedia does not have clear policy on list like this. However, all of this information can go into Wikidata, and each of these organizations can have a Wikidata item. Although the functionality does not exist now in Wikipedia, I think that soon somehow Wikimedia projects will make it much easier for anyone to generate and share lists of things like if they are in Wikidata. I recommend considering Wikidata as a place for this regardless of Wikipedia.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per WP:SAL, these don't seem to fit the stand-alone list criteria.
Natureium (
talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete all I don't see why we should copy lists maintained by others, copyvio or not. This kind of linkfarms is also being added to other articles (see for example
Open access in Italy). --
Randykitty (
talk) 22:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
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.