Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 06:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases (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)

Copyright violation - ICD-10 is licensed as CC BY-SA-NC, NC being incompatible with Wikipedia. This is a batch nomination which will include other articles below, as well as some potentially related ones that may also be copyvios. Using AFD instead of speedy to form community discussion and have a record of said discussion, per prior discussion on WT:MED bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batch contents

[edit]

Potential other pages that may host copyrighted material from ICD/DSM

[edit]

Struck these as per Colin probably best that DSM and non-list ICD related articles are handled separately bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Delete at least batch 1, undecided on other two articles - these articles are straight from a work that is copyrighted, is not available under a free licence, and thus are ineligible for Wikipedia. There is no way that an entire copying of ICD is encyclopedic (even if it was available under a free licence), and it would fail multiple parts of the requirements to host non free content. These have been articles forever, attribution in the history is all kinds of funky because of multiple combinations/splits, and thus bringing them to AFD to have record of the reasons for deletion. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone claiming to be Robert Jakob commented on Arcadian's talk page back in 2006 that WHO has given permission to present ICD-10 in wikipedia. This was then copied to Talk:ICD-10. If it could be confirmed that it was in fact Dr Jacob (not that I would have anyway of doing so); would that address the copyright issue, or would the change in licence to CC BY-SA-NC 3.0 in 2016 override the 2006 "declaration"? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Little pob: The full quote with context is: WHO has given permission to present ICD-10 in wikipedia. However no publisher may change content or structure of the classifcation - this is akin to a "you can republish, but you cannot make any changes [i.e. no derivatives]" - so it's actually a more restrictive license than it is available under now (that declaration would be akin to a CC BY-SA-NC-ND, i.e. no commercial, no derivatives). Wikipedia cannot host material as "free" based on a "you can present ICD-10 in Wikipedia" - the material must be eligible to copy and license under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, or meet our non-free rules, neither of which seems to be the case here. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, When you contribute material to Wikipedia, you are not giving us exclusive use of it. You still retain any rights you previously held, but you are giving non-exclusive license under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). These licenses allow anyone—not just Wikipedia—to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, provided that you are attributed as the author. There is no way to say "you can use this in Wikipedia, but not anywhere else or in derivative works." Also, because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for educational use or even for general non-commercial use. The bolding is present in the original quote, the italics were added by me to point out relevant parts. Thus, while that declaration was likely made in good faith, and the users took it in good faith when they copied the material into WP, that declaration has never been a valid declaration per current policy. Furthermore, there would need to be a clear indication the material is not under the license as the rest of the material on the page, which there isn't on any of these. But again, don't think they are encyclopedic to begin with, so... bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez: thanks for pinging. My understanding of the However no publisher may change content or structure of the classifcation part of "Dr Jakob's" comment is that it's referencing that Wikipedia originally listed the chapter numbers using Arabic numbers rather than Roman numerals. I doubt anyone who needed codes would come to Wikipedia rather than WHO's online browser anyway (will cast a !vote below). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleté Unlikely to be resolvable, the WHO have their reasons for the specific license and keeping would require a wholesale change to Wikipedia's license. We can just link to the WHO's site for this it is likely to remain there indefinitely and is organised in the same way. PainProf (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DSM5 The sections in the DSM 5 article for deletion may need be expanded. I found the change descriptions quite curiously phrased, they look like they are directly taken from the APA source which is says its copyright APA? Seems to affect entire changes section in that article. PainProf (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-- Colin°Talk 07:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OPS-301 may need adding to the list, as it is based on WHO's International Classification of Procedures in Medicine. It's worth mentioning that, despite having "ICD-10" in its name, ICD-10 Procedure Coding System is owned (by which I mean developed and maintained) by CMS rather than WHO. I've no idea as to ICD-10-PCS's copyright compatibility with Wikipedia though... (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Little pob: I've struck everything other than the ICD-10 lists themselves (and the US list which is a copyvio as it's not licensed either per above) from this AFD. I think the recommendation that DSM be covered by a separate AFD, as well as non-list ICD articles by a separate AFD, is a good suggestion. The PCS seems to me like it's a derivative work of the ICD itself, thus if ICD-10 is not permissible on Wikipedia, by definition any derivative would not be (as the ICD is not licensed under anything other than a "share alike", meaning that the derivative would have to be shared under an equally restrictive license). I'm happy to work with you, Colin, and others to form lists of related articles if you guys want to - happy to work on wiki, or communicate via email/another method if you guys prefer. I'm very sporadic as to what time I have to edit right now, and many times it's just fixing things I come across when browsing WP for other reasons, so I don't want to commit to further AFD batching for this at this moment - but I'll certainly try. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the DSM and agree those should be covered separately after more investigation to complete. I also agree that some of the other ICD-10 related articles need cleaning up as well, so I've struck everything except the ICD-10 copies and the US adaptation page so we can focus on the other ICD-10, DSM, and ICD-11 related articles in a separate batch AFD for each. I'm happy to work with you to create lists to start that process, but it may be slower for me as this investigation itself was made easier based on the linking of each chapter from the main ICD-10 page. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ICD-10_Chapter_I:_Certain_infectious_and_parasitic_diseases&oldid=971291850"