Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of some Idioms

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 Speedy Delete per G11 by Materialscientist. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of some Idioms

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

Unmanageable list with no obvious criteria for inclusion. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 09:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as copyright infringement. Materialscientist (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in fact really speedy delete. Firstly, this is, as NickW557 says, an unmanageable list, and really rather pointless. It cites no sources. More important, however, is the fact that at least a substantial part of it, and perhaps all of it, infringes copyright. (While of course the individual quotes are not subject to copyright, verbatim reproduction of a long list of them is.) A very large proportion of the article is a direct copy from Scribd: see this page. Scribd's copyright license is not compatible with use on Wikipedia:

Subject to Your compliance with the terms and conditions set out in these Terms, Scribd hereby grants to You a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, freely revocable license to view, download (including, without limitation download to a portable device), print, and have printed User Content for personal use subject to any express restrictions contained in the license under which such User Content is distributed.

(quoted from http://support.scribd.com/forums/33939/entries/25459.) In addition I have traced other parts of the list to other websites, but I have not found any such unequivocal statement of copyright. However, my understanding is that Wikipedia's policy is to require evidence of copyright permission, and that in the absence of such evidence we do not accept material. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2010 (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.