Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses

Ok, I promise that this MfD won't be nominated by an indef blocked abusive sock but User:Jack Merridew himself was indefinitely blocked globally for socking. I wish I was making this up. I'm not sure what policies to point to this time but this is not an appropriate use of userspace, it's a banned user and per the prior discussions, again, this page consists largely of non-free text from a copyrighted article, the fair use nonsense aside. We've cleared up Wikipedia:NFCC#9 by now so it should go. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - he's been gone a few years now, he's not coming back, no point in keeping this stuff around. BOZ (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: wisdom from beyond the wiki-grave, so to speak. Also coding genius. An do you REALLY think he's gone? Naah. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is nothing inappropriate about this use of userspace and we are by no means short of server space, certainly not the 24 KB that those four pages take up. What is this "copyrighted article" that the text is taken from? A quick look at:
q:William Golding #Lord of the Flies (1954)

immediately shows that the 'Quotes' and 'Quote switch' pages use a sub-set of the content of that page, which is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (see the bottom of that page). The real nonsense here is not the use of short excerpts as a critical commentary, but the intent to censor such criticism when the author isn't here to defend himself. --RexxS (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is not Wikiquotes. Wikipedia policy is fairly clear:

"here is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met."

However rule 9 to that requires that:

Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions

(with exemptions related to images where we haven't haven't figured it out). Fairuse is not an argument for userspace content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know this Wikipedia, not Wikiquotes, thank you. But the point you're missing is that at the bottom of the page q:William Golding #Lord of the Flies (1954) it clearly states:

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License

Do you deny that? I, or anybody else like Jack, can use text that is available under a CC-BY-SA licence anywhere in Wikipedia. Text made available under CC-BY-SA is not "non-free content". All of the text in the Quotes page is available from Wikiquotes as CC-BY-SA, making an exposition on non-free content completely irrelevant. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er...no opinion on whether the page should be kept or deleted, but that argument doesn't make sense - if you post material to a CC-licensed site that has a third-party copyright, the act of posting it doesn't magically make the copyright disappear. This is why we delete copyvio and have a fair-use policy here, even though we too have a CC license. The material is likely fair-use on Wikiquote, but they can't release it under CC. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, Nikki. When you post material to Wikiquote, you see exactly the same notice as you do here: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. By clicking the “Save page” button, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Each page has to conform to the same Terms of Use and there is the "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" on the bottom of every page. If you're trying to say that somehow means "text isn't available under a CC-BY-SA licence; it's only fair use", then you'd better take it up with Wikiquote. We both agree fair use is not CC-BY-SA. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the notice says, but the fact of the matter is if the contributor doesn't have the right to release content under CC (as with pretty much any quote from a copyrighted source), that content doesn't become CC just because it's posted either here or at Wikiquote. The quotes in question are non-free both here and there, so the issue to consider is whether they are justifiable under fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see wikiquote:Wikiquote:Copyrights (draft policy), which distinguishes between text written by Wikiquote editors and quotations from external sources. WP:Reusing Wikipedia content#Fair use materials and special requirements ({{Legal policy}} tag) makes a similar distinction: "All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses." Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Flatscan, that sheds more light on the issue. That page is indeed a draft policy ("It is available for consideration by the community, but does not yet reflect community consensus. Editors and sysops may follow the policies drafted here at their own responsibility.") and seems to have been so since 2006. That explains why it's not linked from any of the pages that I mention above. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any benefit to the encyclopedia (dubious) from deleting this is not worth the aggravation from stirring this up. Also per Montanabw and RexxS. And if you can't point to policies advising deletion, why is this here?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially per RexxS. There's no clear policy-based reason to delete these pages. ~~Having said that, delete Quote switch, as it is an entirely redundant subset of Quotes.~~ —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBLOG is pretty standard policy. This is not article drafts, there is no possibility of its inclusion within the encyclopedia and it creates a terrible precedent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quote switch is transcluded onto User talk:Jack Merridew/Editnotice and its function is to pull up a different quote into the edit notice each time the talk page is opened for editing. It should be kept if the decision is to keep the others, as it's not actually redundant. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for explaining that. Changed my initial comment. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:48, 17 June 2014 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.