Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard YouTube license
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:16, 14 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 06:16, 14 April 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 was Delete. The consensus below is that there is nothing useful to merge in the article. If a redirect is desired it can be set as an editorial decision. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard YouTube license (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This does not appear to be a subject that warrants an encyclopedia article. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources about the standard YouTube license. GB fan 22:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable (although I wouldn't oppose a redirect to YouTube). Google News archives only have two articles, which focus on YouTube adding a Creative Commons license option rather than giving significant coverage of the standard YouTube license. Yes, there are hundreds of Google Books hits, but in my experience, Google Books is notorious for pulling up false positives (note that the first Google Books result is an 1889 novel by Charles Dickens, which obviously doesn't discuss YouTube in any way, shape, or form, for example). WorldCat is probably a better alternative for searching for books, and it has nothing on this license. I concur with the nominator that significant coverage in reliable sources for this license does not appear to exist. CtP (t • c) 23:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect / merge with YouTube - I don't think there's enough content for this article to stand on its own, but it's worth mentioning in its parent. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to YouTube. It's currently a stub, and YouTube is an obvious target. I'm sure you'll find coverage of this somewhere (e.g. EFF publications) but it's pointless having a separate page for every website's license. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What is there to merge? The bulk of the article, meat of it, is a direct quote from the license agreement. I'm not convinced that quoting the license agreement is appropriate, and even if it is, it can be done directly in the main article without need of keeping a redirect for attribution history. -- Whpq (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable terms-of-service clause. Nothing to merge up to Youtube. TJRC (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.