Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West End Girls
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 - copyvio - SimonP 00:13, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Pet Shop Boys lyrics only. Transwiki to WikiSource and delete. Denni☯ 01:58, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- Keep Not only are those lyrics copied all over the place, I'm pretty sure Bobby would only feel complimented by seeing the lyrics posted here; Let's point him to this page! Also, any fool with decent ears can quote them after hearing them, what is the harm in writing them (or part of them) down for once? I really don't see what the fuss is about. It is exactly by posting them here how you would make them 'belong' to those who wrote them. West End Girls <- there, was that so hard? ;-) JuliusThyssen 12:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If a) Mr. Orlando is the sole owner of the copyright to the lyrics and b) can verifiably express his permission to post the lyrics on a Wikimedia project, then the lyrics might be appropriate for Wikisource (but not Wikipedia). Incidentally, not "any fool" can discern all of the lyrics in West End Girls. It wasn't until I read the article that I found out that what comes after In a West End town is a dead end world and not something completely different. And my ears are fine, thank you. :-)android↔talk 20:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- So why again is the West End Girls page taken offline? Again, if I can post these lyrics the way I just did, anyone can, and Wikisource can too. I won't be sued for it. Wanna bet on it? By the way, I did hear what they were saying there in that track (seems my ears are better than yours then). The text here is not the same as that of the page on wikipedia.195.64.95.116
- Wikipedia:Copyright explains it all. "We won't get sued" is a terribly naïve attitude. Websites that have posted lyrics in the past have faced litigation; there's no reason to take the chance that Wikipedia won't. You won't be sued because no one will notice. Wikipedia is just a bit more high-profile. android↔talk 03:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think Alexa understands the internet very well. First of all, post a link to my page on West End Girls/Temp and you're done. Mine will still be considered "unnoticed", the viewer will notice, but Alexa won't, everybody happy. I have a great deal of respect for Orlando, and he knows that he should have thought of keeping his writing for and to himself before he made sure it would be yelled in my ears. If I hear something, I will post it on my site if I damn well please. They (Pet Shop Boys) should have kept their mouths shut if they didn't want that to happen. I still don't see what this has to do with copyrights, since I'm not copying anything, I'm reporting what I heard in free air. JuliusThyssen 10:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Copyright explains it all. "We won't get sued" is a terribly naïve attitude. Websites that have posted lyrics in the past have faced litigation; there's no reason to take the chance that Wikipedia won't. You won't be sued because no one will notice. Wikipedia is just a bit more high-profile. android↔talk 03:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- So why again is the West End Girls page taken offline? Again, if I can post these lyrics the way I just did, anyone can, and Wikisource can too. I won't be sued for it. Wanna bet on it? By the way, I did hear what they were saying there in that track (seems my ears are better than yours then). The text here is not the same as that of the page on wikipedia.195.64.95.116
- If a) Mr. Orlando is the sole owner of the copyright to the lyrics and b) can verifiably express his permission to post the lyrics on a Wikimedia project, then the lyrics might be appropriate for Wikisource (but not Wikipedia). Incidentally, not "any fool" can discern all of the lyrics in West End Girls. It wasn't until I read the article that I found out that what comes after In a West End town is a dead end world and not something completely different. And my ears are fine, thank you. :-)android↔talk 20:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This is a copyvio. Because there is a seperate process for dealing with copyvios, this article should be marked as a copyvio and removed from VfD. VfD is not the proper method for dealing with a copyvio. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 11:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I marked it as a copyvio over a whole day before you wrote the above note. — JIP | Talk 04:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it needs to be removed from VfD, as this discussion has no bearing on whether the copyvio version is removed. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 11:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An article can be listed at WP:CP and WP:VFD at the same time. CP deals with the article's current content and its copyright status; VFD deals with the article's subject and whether or not an article on that subject is appropriate for Wikipedia (although sometimes its current content is taken into account). The two processes are complementary, not adversarial. android↔talk 20:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Then it needs to be removed from VfD, as this discussion has no bearing on whether the copyvio version is removed. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 11:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I marked it as a copyvio over a whole day before you wrote the above note. — JIP | Talk 04:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, wouldn't lyrics be a copyvio, and as such, not appropriate for Wikisource, either? android↔talk 03:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio. Rmhermen 04:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if encyclopedic content other than the lyrics may be added, but that seems unlikely. Delete for now. — JIP | Talk 05:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. I will have a go at writing a temp page as this was a notable song going to number 1 in both the UK and US in 1986. However, it would be unwise to add the changes as that would preserve the copy vio in the article's history. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, copyvio, Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Megan1967 07:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No transwiki as, believe it or not, that profound document is copyright. Just a fan dump. Geogre 11:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. 23skidoo 13:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource - Copyrights mean nothing. — Jesse's Girl 13:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Why don't we have a lyrics wiki?? Jesse's Girl 13:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's a Wiki rule not to include copyrighted material without permission. Have a look at WP:CP. — JIP | Talk 13:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There's pleny of other websites that list song lyrics without permission. Are we too upscale (read: pretentious) for that? — Jesse's Girl 13:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I repeat, no Transwiki to Wikisource, as they are a Wikimedia project and are bound by the same copyright policies as Wikipedia. If by pretentious you mean afraid of litigation, then yes. android↔talk 14:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
My vote stands. I must say that if anyone brought litigation against wikimedia, it would most likely not be over lyrics, and that they had better be suing all the other lyrics sites too, or we'll countersue. BTW, see wiktionary:pretentious since you don't know. Jesse's Girl 14:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Well, if you want to vote for something that's contrary to well-established policy and that can't happen, that's your prerogative. (I don't know where you got the idea that I don't know the meaning of the word pretentious, but whatever.) android↔talk 15:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- There's nothing that says it can't happen under fair use. But since this is a mere copyright debate, and not a VfD, I'm changing my vote. Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC) And you said prentious means "afraid of litigation", so you don't know what it means.[reply]
- He didn't say pretentious meant "afraid of litigation". He said that your claim of Wikipedians being pretentious would be true if the word "pretentious" was replaced with "afraid of litigation". — JIP | Talk 11:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing that says it can't happen under fair use. But since this is a mere copyright debate, and not a VfD, I'm changing my vote. Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC) And you said prentious means "afraid of litigation", so you don't know what it means.[reply]
- Well, if you want to vote for something that's contrary to well-established policy and that can't happen, that's your prerogative. (I don't know where you got the idea that I don't know the meaning of the word pretentious, but whatever.) android↔talk 15:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I repeat, no Transwiki to Wikisource, as they are a Wikimedia project and are bound by the same copyright policies as Wikipedia. If by pretentious you mean afraid of litigation, then yes. android↔talk 14:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Why? There's pleny of other websites that list song lyrics without permission. Are we too upscale (read: pretentious) for that? — Jesse's Girl 13:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's a Wiki rule not to include copyrighted material without permission. Have a look at WP:CP. — JIP | Talk 13:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikisource is for original material, so this wouldn't be quite right there. I'm not as opposed to the idea of a lyrics wiki, but I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what the legality is; it seems like it would be a copyright violation at the end of the day- just because other sites are doing it doesn't mean it's legal. --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 15:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Let me explain: We can use lyrics under fair use, provided that they're there for educational purposes only. This is how the other lyrics sites get away with it. Why can't we? — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- IANAL, so I'm no expert either, but I think you have a rather strange interpretation of Fair use. By what I've read, pasting the entire contents of lyrics to songs by the thousands (as I assume you're advocating here) into articles wouldn't qualify as fair use, even if you use the "It's educational!" defense. Any experts/actual lawyers care to chime in here? android↔talk 22:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless the site belongs to a record company or the musicians publishers, most other sites that have entire lyrics printed up are in fact in breach of copyright laws - they just havent been caught or prosecuted yet.. Megan1967 05:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- IANAL, so I'm no expert either, but I think you have a rather strange interpretation of Fair use. By what I've read, pasting the entire contents of lyrics to songs by the thousands (as I assume you're advocating here) into articles wouldn't qualify as fair use, even if you use the "It's educational!" defense. Any experts/actual lawyers care to chime in here? android↔talk 22:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Let me explain: We can use lyrics under fair use, provided that they're there for educational purposes only. This is how the other lyrics sites get away with it. Why can't we? — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why don't we have a lyrics wiki?? Jesse's Girl 13:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Lyrics are copyrighted. Delete, and review the litigation history of http://www.lyrics.ch. RickK 16:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a copyright violation which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Also, it can't be in the history of the article. Mgm|(talk) 16:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. Mark as copyvio. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Copyvio. But this is a great song—don't dis the Pet Shop Boys. :-) –DeweyQ 18:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as article but edit to replace content entirely. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio, but without prejudice as to whether a legitimate article about the song may be recreated. Though I have been unable to find any case law directly on point, I don't buy the fair use argument because the copying is too substantial and the argument for academic use too tenuous. At best it's right on the outer edge of fair use, and we should err on the side of caution because we really don't gain very much from being a lyrics depository. Re: "everyone else is doing it," that's hardly the best argument, particularly if you really look at the notices of some of these lyrics websites, they seem to be trying to shield themselves from contributory infringement claims by characterizing themselves as a mere venue for users to post lyrics without their intervention or supervision. Not exactly a confident endorsement. Postdlf 23:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with Postdlf's "fair use" argument 100%. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Uncle G and I have written an article on West End Girls/Temp. I would be grateful if it could be copied to the main article at the conclusion of the copyvio process. Capitalistroadster 10:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized I hadn't actually voted yet. Delete as copyvio but recreate with Capitalistroadster's and Uncle G's new versions after deletion. android↔talk 20:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely keep West End Girls/Temp after the current one is deleted. Postdlf 22:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.