Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of capitalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged. Copyirght status still unresolved - SimonP 03:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No useful content, delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've never seen a dictionary that looks like that. RJII 17:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: it explicitly states that a list of dictionary definitions is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - Mike Rosoft 17:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a list of dictionary definitions. It's a list of definitions that includes dictionary definitions and definitions from noteable thinkers. RJII 18:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, it IS a list of dictionary definitions with a few quotes added. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote, either. - Mike Rosoft 19:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a list of dictionary definitions. It's a list of definitions that includes dictionary definitions and definitions from noteable thinkers. RJII 18:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: it explicitly states that a list of dictionary definitions is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - Mike Rosoft 17:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Del per nomination —msh210 18:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete definitions of socialism as re-creation of material deleted for copyright violation (deletion log) of thirteen paper dictionaries. Delete definitions of capitalism for copyright violation of twenty-six commercial dictionaries and three commercial encyclopaedias. Caution authors that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that, moreover, if an article is to be written on how people have differed in their definitions of capitalism and socialism, that article must not be a raw dump of the source materials, even when those materials are GFDL-compatible. Uncle G 19:44, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- Since when is it a copyright violation to quote a definition from a dictionary? RJII 20:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since 1710 in some countries. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- This is 2005 and it's not Britain. RJII 14:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since 1710 in some countries. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- Since when is it a copyright violation to quote a definition from a dictionary? RJII 20:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but remove dictionary and encyclopedia definitions. The definitions by theorists shed light on how various schools of thought regard the topics and thus belong right here. Also there is no question of copyvio for them. Kappa 20:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, see WP:NOT. An article consisting of nothing but a list of quotes is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; rather, it would belong to Wikiquote. Wikiquote:Capitalism already exists, a similar listing can be made for socialism. - Mike Rosoft 22:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to capitalism and socialism, respectively. RickK 23:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge relevant content (if any) into capitalism and socialism, then redirect. Kelly Martin 03:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, strongly concur with Uncle G. this poorly-conceived page doesn't actually help anyone, least of all Wikipedia. Merge only as a last resort. Slac speak up! 03:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, you're dead wrong about the page not being helpful. Being a participant in a now-resolved lengthy edit war over getting a definition of capitalism in the capitalism article, I know that the creation and editing of the definitions of capitalism article was essential and instrumental. If it's deleted, I predict more unnecessary edit-warring from people who have no clue how capitalism is commonly defined and who are unwilling to go research tons of dictionaries, encyclopedia, and works of thinkers to find out. The article serves to consolidate all of that research in one place to avoid unnecessary battling in the capitalism article. The claim that's it's not useful is definitely wrong. RJII 04:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge respectively into capitalism and socialism. Forks. Megan1967 06:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The content or even parts of it cannot be moved to the alreday much too long capitalism article. Deleting the page will only start the very intense and long-lasting previous edit war about the correct definition of capitalism again. This article was cited in a case before the arbcom as part of the resolution to this previous edit war, so it should be kept. Ultramarine 09:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- One possiblity would be to move the material to Wikiquote. Ultramarine 10:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiquote has the same copyright policy as Wikipedia, and the same command not to submit copyrighted work beneath every edit box. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- It is certainly Fair use to quote one paragraph from a dictionary. Please give source if claiming otherwise. Ultramarine 12:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is a false characterization. This article is exactly copying entries from twenty-six dictionaries (and three encyclopaedias), rather than "quoting one paragraph from a dictionary". If you think that copying copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias into WikiMedia project articles is acceptable, then you should discuss this with the WikiMedia Foundation, and on the talk pages of the various copyright policies for all of the WikiMedia projects, which all say otherwise. (You'll have a have a hard time of it. The GFDL is a foundation issue, and non-negotiable.) Why did you think that Wiktionarians and Wikipedians are specifically pointed in the directions of Webster 1913 and Britannica 1911? There's plenty of explanation, of why Wiktionary and Wikipedia must not copy (non-GFDL licenced) copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias, linked to from our copyright policy, a link to which is on this and every page, and no need for us to spoon-feed it to you in this discussion. Please go and read it all. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- Your reasoningis strange. So what if it's "twenty-six" dictionaries? If it's not a copyright violation to provide a quote from one dictionary, then it's not a violation to quote a definition from a hundred different dictionaries. RJII 19:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is a false characterization. This article is exactly copying entries from twenty-six dictionaries (and three encyclopaedias), rather than "quoting one paragraph from a dictionary". If you think that copying copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias into WikiMedia project articles is acceptable, then you should discuss this with the WikiMedia Foundation, and on the talk pages of the various copyright policies for all of the WikiMedia projects, which all say otherwise. (You'll have a have a hard time of it. The GFDL is a foundation issue, and non-negotiable.) Why did you think that Wiktionarians and Wikipedians are specifically pointed in the directions of Webster 1913 and Britannica 1911? There's plenty of explanation, of why Wiktionary and Wikipedia must not copy (non-GFDL licenced) copyrighted dictionaries and encyclopaedias, linked to from our copyright policy, a link to which is on this and every page, and no need for us to spoon-feed it to you in this discussion. Please go and read it all. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- It is certainly Fair use to quote one paragraph from a dictionary. Please give source if claiming otherwise. Ultramarine 12:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiquote has the same copyright policy as Wikipedia, and the same command not to submit copyrighted work beneath every edit box. Uncle G 11:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- One possiblity would be to move the material to Wikiquote. Ultramarine 10:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. There is potential here for good articles illustrating important debates. FreplySpang (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Megan1967 — RJH 15:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have written a notification on Wikipedia:Copyvio so that it can be decided if the content is appropriate. - Mike Rosoft 16:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It has already been decided. Definitions of socialism was listed there on 2005-05-08 and deleted on 2005-05-16 after the discussion period. As I said, this is simple re-creation of content deleted per the copyright violation deletion process, and qualifies for speedy deletion. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- If so, it was a bad decision. It's not a copyright violation to quote a definition from a dictionary. RJII 19:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a mistake: this is on Definitions of capitalism not definitons of socialism. This one has never been deleted and recreated, definitions of socialism has been.--Fenice 08:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from the heading, this is a VfD of both definitions of socialism and definitions of capitalism. - Mike Rosoft 09:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a mistake: this is on Definitions of capitalism not definitons of socialism. This one has never been deleted and recreated, definitions of socialism has been.--Fenice 08:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, it was a bad decision. It's not a copyright violation to quote a definition from a dictionary. RJII 19:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It has already been decided. Definitions of socialism was listed there on 2005-05-08 and deleted on 2005-05-16 after the discussion period. As I said, this is simple re-creation of content deleted per the copyright violation deletion process, and qualifies for speedy deletion. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- Very useful information, keep and improve. Short sourced quotes within a context are not copyvios.--Fenice 08:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- very useful, in that it allows editors to get beyond unresolvable definitional disputes in the capitalism and socialism article. Also, I'm not buying the copyright claim. These defs are all within the meaning of fair use SFAIK. --Christofurio 03:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep -- yes, wiktionary is indeed for definitions, but also for pronunciations, etc, as long as it is an aid for use in language. Wiktionary is also for the simple definitions of words. However, these articles address the definitions is the context of the idea or philosophy, which can never be dictionary-like, for it is no longer a guide for language use but rather another body of knowledge. I suggest though, one, to restore the articles but edit it according to the definitions of notable people, rather than dictionaries, and two, to discuss the history of how those definitions began, developed, and evolved. Making the articles like that will resolve all standing issues. --Humble Guy 15:37, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- integrate content into capitalism and socialism articles, respectively. If a consensus cannot be reached on how to define socialism and capitalism, simple give multiple definitions in the introductions to their two articles and explain which group uses which definition (although I really can't see why it's so hard to reach a consensus, especially on capitalism - in general, both supporters and opponents of capitalism define it in the same way). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. I just, a minute ago, had to revert a change in the definition. Somebody tried to assert that it's commonly defined as an economy where "capitalists" dictate prices, etc, rather than the market. This is probably because the definitions of capitalism article is unavailable right now. The definitions article helps prevent useless battles over how capitalism is commonly defined. Apparently a lot of people have no clue. RJII 21:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - SimonP 03:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.