Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcasters' rights under copyright law: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:06, 10 May 2017

Broadcasters' rights under copyright law

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory of statutes, nor is it a place to list case law or legal outcomes. Per WP:NOTESSAY, this article has no place on Wikipedia Exemplo347 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with the caveat that Wikipedia should have articles about notable cases and important areas of law. But in this instance, we do - under Copyright law of the United States. If there is some aspect of Broadcaster's rights that bears discussion, it would be best to discuss it there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should retain this page as it is a comparative analysis of US law and Indian Law. It is written in encyclopedia-style and from a neutral point of view. The page does not simply state the statutory provisions and case laws, but provides information about broadcaster's rights under Indian and US law. Even though there is a page on US copyright law, broadcaster's rights is a neighbouring right which is separate from the rights of the copyright owner. Thus, this article satisfies the requirement of notability as the topic is worthy of research. Srishti Singhania (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 05:03, 10 May 2017 edit Srishti Singhania (talk \| contribs) 7 edits →Broadcasters' rights under copyright law ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:06, 10 May 2017 edit undo Srishti Singhania (talk \| contribs) 7 edits →Broadcasters' rights under copyright law Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India\|list of India-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k\|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k\|talk]]) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)</small>		:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India\|list of India-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k\|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k\|talk]]) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)</small>

	We should retain this page as it is a comparative analysis of US law and Indian Law. It is written in encyclopedia-style and from a neutral point of ~~you~~. The page does not simply state the statutory provisions and case laws, but provides information about broadcaster's rights under Indian and US law. Even though there is a page on US copyright law, broadcaster's rights is a neighbouring right ~~and~~ is ~~not~~ a ~~part~~ of copyright ~~law~~. Thus, this article satisfies the requirement of notability as the topic is worthy of research. [[User:Srishti Singhania\|Srishti Singhania]] ([[User talk:Srishti Singhania\|talk]]) 05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)		We should retain this page as it is a comparative analysis of US law and Indian Law. It is written in encyclopedia-style and from a neutral point of view. The page does not simply state the statutory provisions and case laws, but provides information about broadcaster's rights under Indian and US law. Even though there is a page on US copyright law, broadcaster's rights is a neighbouring right which is separate from the rights of the copyright owner. Thus, this article satisfies the requirement of notability as the topic is worthy of research. [[User:Srishti Singhania\|Srishti Singhania]] ([[User talk:Srishti Singhania\|talk]]) 05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)