Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Mad Crowd" Disease

Hopelessly POV, somewhat (OK, very) incoherent. IMO, Wikipedia is not the place for paranoid rants from either the right wing or the left.Dukeofomnium 15:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Author is very new to Wikipedia. Probably will have to be deleted, but at least let's give them a chance to rescue this. DJ Clayworth 16:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "rescue this". Does that mean that you think there is anything there that is worth rescuing? I would appreciate your ideas, thank you. Paxdora

It's well-written (damning it with faint praise) but it's still a POV rant. Give it the five days to get straightened up and to be made encyclopedic. If not, delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: The rest of the web is home to personal home pages, online journalism, blogging. This article is based on a neologism and then offers up an essay. When I want political essays, I read The Nation online rather than an encyclopedia. I don't mean to be snippy, and it's not nonsense or evil or bad or anything, but it sure seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Geogre 17:56, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Being of the same mind, ie, that corporations are mindless eating machines with no social conscience, I can find resonance with this article. Unfortunately, while it would earn ching!s big-time at E2, it is too POV here. It has every potential to be a strong article if the author can take it from rant to researched article. Delete if this cannot be done. Denni ☯ 18:14, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
Delete, ranting raving POV, neologism, not encyclopedic. Joyous 19:42, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

It's a copyvio. See [1]. I've listed it on Copyright problems. RickK 19:40, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

You are very wrong, RickK. You offer NO PROOF of copyright violation by simply referring to a Google search page showing the words "corporate crowd". Is that phrase copyrighted by anyone? Then please do cite the source. My article was an entirely original work suggesting that the so-called "corporate crowd" mentioned by Paul O'Neill should be called the "mad crowd". So what, exactly, is your case??? User:Paxdora 11:19 pm

It seems to me that the quotation cited as a copyright violation is within the grounds of fair use. Of course, the original article would go on VfD for being a POV screed anyways. -Sean Curtin 12:30, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have no opinion yet on whether this should be deleted, but I don't see that anything in the link RickK provided shows a copyvio. older≠wiser 03:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what older≠wiser says. I searched but could not find a copy vio. I am sorry, but I cannot find anything in that article that remotely resembles a copyright violation. There are no whole blocks of text copied from some source. The debate over whether or not it can go in the encyclopedia should not be clouded by this false claim. In addition, it is obivious you probably did not check those urls on the google search, as several of them are 404's. Burgundavia 04:48, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are factual similarities, but no actual copies. By that standard, every encyclopedia is a copy of the 1st. However, aside from that, I did a very careful search with about a dozen randomly selected sentences from the article and I cannot find even something that remotely resembles a copy vio. Nothing, not even a hint. Burgundavia 04:54, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

The allegation does seem a bit weak/reckless from just appearances.. if someone thinks a contribution is a copyvio, then you should be able to identify at least one or two specifc places that a posting apparently included material from improperly, or that are substantially similar. Linking to a google search makes the allegation seem very vague, difficult to evaluate or defend against, and perhaps more malicious than fair. Who's going to actually read all the search results to try and find which site is supposedly infringed? How can you argue about a google search with 40+ hits, that none of the results have any similar content at all, without reading each of them? -- Mysidia 20:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete essay whether or not it's a copyvio. It's not an encyclopedia article, and the term's a personal neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is not copyvio. Is POV. Is personal essay. Is neologism. Is delete. -Sean Curtin 12:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is not a personal neologism. The term Mad Crowd Disease has been coined and published on the Internet and is currently being used as the name for a punk rock band (in the U.K., I believe). Paxdora 6/18/04

Using a segment or sentence from a newspaper article, whether copied verbatim or modified, in order to create a new, original essay is NOT a copyright infringement, but a perfect example of lawful "Fair Use". Read the statute and learn something important about democracy and free speech - while it still remains in America, that is.

Copyright & Fair Use http://www.usg.edu/admin/legal/copyright/

Fair Use Statute, 17 U.S.C. § 107:

3rd proposition of "fair use" principles the ultimate test for educational fair use is whether the copying is done for sound pedagogical reasons and not simply to avoid purchasing a work

Fair use is derivative of copyright.

Fair use modifies the marketing monopoly of the copyright holder so that copyright can fulfill its constitutional purpose of promoting learning.

Fair use normally entails copying and is of three kinds:

a. Creative fair use by authors who copy from other works to create their own work.

b. Personal fair use by individuals who copy from works for their own learning or entertainment.

c. Educational fair use by teachers, scholars, and students who copy for teaching, scholarship, or learning.

Attempts to limit the fair use right with quantitative guidelines are without statutory authority.

The legal effect of quantitative guidelines is to provide a safe-harbor, i.e., copying within the guideline limits automatically qualifies as fair use. Such guidelines do not, and cannot legally, mean that copying in excess of the guidelines is infringement and not fair use.

Paxdora 6/18/04 8:56 am

Regardless of copyright, this is a POV rant, not an encyclopedic article. Delete. Rossami 17:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - POV rant - Tεx τ urε 06:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedia material. —Stormie 11:14, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: personal essay. FWIW there's no evidence it's a copyvio. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:24, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of copyright and neologism concerns, this is a POV rant. Delete, delete, delete. --dcf 13:09, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION IS CLOSED.

Since the author has strongly objected to allegation of copyright violation it is hereby recorded that the reasons for deletion are not copyright violation. Ignoring those who considered copyright to be an issue, the vote is still 8 in favour of deletion, none against. Deleted. DJ Clayworth 20:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)