The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Codename Lisa/What if the characters of Friends TV series were Wikipedians?[edit]

User:Codename Lisa/What if the characters of Friends TV series were Wikipedians? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates WP:NFCC because it is a derivative work that incorporates elements from a copyright-protected film. Outside Wikipedia, author can get away with it with fair-use. Inside Wikipedia, WP:NFCC forbids fair-use outside article space. Fleet Command (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Author) Keep. Hi. It does not incorporate elements from a work of fiction, it talks about said elements. Example: In Wikipedia we have articles on elements of Final Fantasy VII or Harry Potter. We are not incorporating those components; we're just writing about them and we're not infringing on anyone's copyright. We even cite authors, mention the name of their works and even quote from them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There does not look to be any non free content here, so deletion reason unjustified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Self-referential parody is parody and is not a mere extension of the work, and so the assumption of copyright infringement here is dubious. If there were any real issue here, nearly all of wikia would be copyright infringing. Keep, at least until there is a complaint from someone with standing to complain, and even then remain dubious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No copyright infringement as fa as I can tell. StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We have four keep votes on 19 December whereas page view chart shows only two visits that day. Did everyone see what's in the page before claiming no infringement can be found there? Oh, and by the way, when did I say "copyright infringement"? Fleet Command (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't trust the page view stats. True, you didn't say infringing. It is not fair use. It is sufficiently transformative to be beyond derivative use. It is a comparison of a published creative work and something Wikipedian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I see that "fair use" is vague and extremely broad, including everything non-infringing short of "free". However, this page does not violate the sprit of the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content, and it is the spirit that must be devined because the policy is describing images and quotations, untransformed excerpts. Here we are talking about creative concepts within someone else's work being compared. The must be degrees of fairness, and the fairness here is well above that assumed in the policy. It is over interpretation to say that Wikipedia:Non-free content says userspace may not describe others creative concepts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2013 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.