Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 43p dossier

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 43p dossier

Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki/Delete as per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Delete per nom --Isotope23 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Delete per nom. Avi 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 1) article is meant to be *about* the dossier, not just a repository and 2) isn't there an issue with fair use material on wikisource? (unsigned - was Thparkth)
• Transwiki/Delete per nom. --Maitch 22:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - In order for fair use to apply, it seems as if the scans of work need to be used in a specific way. Summarziation, English translation, and description of a newsworthy item seem like fair use (and appropriate for Wikipedia content). -- Vanitas 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Translation of a copyrighted text is not fair use, it is a copyright violation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Translation is not fair use in itself. However, translation as part of an activity to educate, report the news, or pursue research, can certainly be fair use. I believe this is what we have in this case. -- Vanitas 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Delete per nom. Wikisource is the right place. --Angelo 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Transwiki Keep article about the dossier then link to wiki source with full content 130.226.173.20 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - at least for now. When the scans have been translated, they will be summarized and probably be fed back into the parent article, so as not to run afoul any copyright. After this has happened, there's time enough to consider removal/moving of the page. I object to the fact that this page has been nominated for removal after only a couple of minutes of its creation. Azate 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 06:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep for now, wikisource doesn't take fair use content. Consider transwiki to wikinews. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki/Delete per nom ora 12:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Can't transwiki to Wikisource which doesn't take fair use, or to Wikinews which is creative commons, so keep per Azate. Stifle 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep this is of significant interest and very difficult to find elsewhere on the web and throws considerable light on a subject of major international interest. What are the arguments for deleting???? GregLondon 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep for now. It is better to allow people to see the actual images rather than spreading tell-tale stories about them. The images should not stay indefinitely, but they are relevant at the moment. --Valentinian 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Azate. - Nortonew 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep The dossier and the tour is central for the developement MX44 05:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep Absolutely keep! These documents are probably going to prove very telling in light of recent developments concerning publication of the caricatures in question in Egypt as early as Oct. of last year. Netscott 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• If it is OK for us to use such a large chunk of the fair-use info and not OK for the source, I vote keep. If it is possible to transwiki - lets transwiki, if it is a copyright violation for us, then delete of course. abakharev 06:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikisource It is info that will help understand how disinformation original got spread. A human 07:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Netscott. The dossier may turn out to be as noteworthy as the cartoons. (The article has way too many images. Those should be transwikied to wikisource.) --PeR 07:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Netscott as well. Kyaa the Catlord 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep for now. Consider transwiki to wikinews. Wikisource not suitable for fair use documents . --Donar Reiskoffer 07:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now per Azate. -- Avenue 07:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Keep" Very important & Very difficult to find anywhere else -- Milo 86.139.124.242 08:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• frivolous (this nom -- when good work is being done, don't obstruct it for no good reason) Lotsofissues 09:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• KeepProvides commentary on source, will provide more. Babajobu 10:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important historical document. It is often blamed as the most important igniter of the crisis. It is a unique place for people to judge its content Claush66 11:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move out of the article space. It can't be moved to wikisource because of copyright reasons. However it's a work in progress and is being used to help translate from the arabic. The images may be on dodgy ground - but I expect a strong article on the dossier to come out of the work User:Azate and others are doing. Once the article is done I suggest we delete most of the images. Secretlondon 12:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It may prove to be an essential part, at least until a full translation is made.DanielDemaret 12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is quite possibly historically significant, considering continuing revelations as to the purposes for which it was printed and the questionable origins of three cartoons associated with it. At the least, until the article has been fully translated and is better understood, it should not be deleted, and Transwiki to another medium is apparently problematic. Richard 129.244.23.13 13:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per previous arguments. An extremely relevant piece of information: I shall try and update some analytical/explanatory content using the BBC Special report on this matter due to be broadcast on Radio 4 tonight. --KharBevNor 14:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is quite possibly historically significant--Sheherazahde 14:13, 9 February 2006
• Keep -- possibly historically significant, also the dossier is important in unraveling of events. -Mardus 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This could be a reference for any debate on the topic. --Yobaranut 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Its pages like this that make wikipedia so valuable. (unsigned comment by Greasysteve13)
• Keep. This elements are central in the crisis.Oe kintaro 07:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This document is essential for the case. Angelbo 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep incredibly important to the ongoing events Thparkth 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sijo Ripa 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very important sub-article to give proper information about important world event. Johntex\^talk 17:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki belongs on wikisource, wikipedia is not a host of source material.  ALKIVAR™ 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very important sub-article to give proper information about important world event. WAS 4.250 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Transwiki to wikisource. What is Copyright situation? Rich Farmbrough. 13:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Current version does not even resemble the page submitted for deletion: [1]. Should be at least renominated for deletion before deleted. --KimvdLinde 16:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Falcone
• Keep - Per normal AFD rules a article on the dossier itself is not only approprate but I think required. The rest is content dispute which belongs on the talk page then if it can't be resolved on WP:RFC. Dalf | Talk 23:46, 12 February 2006 (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.