Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe Creative

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 no consensus. After three weeks of being listed here, the discussion never really got around to discussing whether or not this organization is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Creative[edit]

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

Page is basically an ad for an ineffective (at vis-a-vis US rights) private "copyright registration" service that seems to be seeking legitimacy. Sources are all either from the company itself, lists of similar companies, basic reviews, or from corporate partners. This is perhaps a close call, but I just don't think it's there yet. Mgcsinc (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Mgcsinc, Thanks for reviewing and pointing there's improvement to be made. I have tried not to create an ad like page, but to inform about an online private registry that based on technology, rather than authority can create a valid iuris tantum evidence as the Berne Convention and International Treaties suggest. I have some ideas and issues to point out like a) While US resident citizens do need to use the US Copyright Office to sue in the US, they might use private registries evidence to sue in other countries and legislations. b) The article does not seek legitimacy, there's the critic you state. It has been marked and highlighted thanks to the archive.org and that is the reason Safe Creative allows people to use a simplified wizard to send their registrations to USCO in the US, and outside. Also non US citizens use this system to register works in the Library of Congress c) Keep in mind that other English language users, such as UK residents, might find private registries valid. Also the article can be read by people from India or China, for instance. d) Some of the earliest endorsers, and some of the links, come from Creative Commons, not a partner though have collaborated in several projects together. Some of the earliest meetings of Safe Creative have been together in events with members of Wikimedia, Creative Commons and the MIT. I think can provide more links to this, true. d) There are being proposals to arrive at WIPO (Safe Creative has been invited to events at WIPO) will add those links too. e) Most important for me is the fact that the role of any registry is to provide information rather than only generating full evidence to sue. By providing up to date information of the situation and authorship of works, many infringements might not even take place. This is a key role, I believe. An example is wikipedia with images. If the page linked from Wikipedia pointing to the authorship claim dissapears, the validity of the first inclusion can be questioned, while having a point (or group of points sharing information in the future), public or private, providing this kind of information migh help to lower the uncertainty. Also there is in general a consensus, as proposal proposal from some countries arise, to have an back active registration system again so that ARR (all rights reserved) option must be and opt in. --Oneras (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again. Have added some relevant links from the invitation from WIPO for Safe Creative and some links to declarations of Media Photographers Assoc. and Creative Commons. Any suggestion to improve the wording or structure of the article will be more than welcom. Maybe I could act an "issues at stake" section to comment the issues here stated? Cheers!--Oneras (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After talking with some friends I have decided will refurbish the article to make it more about direct information of the company. Give me a few days to make the changes, please. --Oneras (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're going to clean it up, I suggest that you do it as soon as possible since at the moment this could be speedied because it's pretty much an unambiguous advertisement for your company. Also, I want to direct you to WP:COI. It's not against the rules to edit an article for a company or product you're involved in, but it is heavily frowned upon because it's so easy to write it as an advertisement without meaning to. Definitely do a cleanup, but also look into getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies to help you if possible. If the article remains, you'll definitely want to get someone else to do the editing for you since that would help take care of many of the concerns of COI and neutrality. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the worst of the advertising and weeded through the sources to get rid of anything that didn't mention the company or was a primary source. (For Oneras: a primary source is anything that is released by the company, such as their website or their press releases. Even if a press release is posted on another site, it's still considered to be a primary source. You also cannot use things that merely state dates of meetings or gatherings.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79 Thankyou very much for the editing. It goes in the line I was talking with some colleagues. Sorry for not writing sooner. I've been sick. Yes, I think this way it looks much better. As you mention, someone might not really want to look like an advertisment, but does it so anyway. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add some direct company information, like who invests, date of public beta and the involvement in other projects such as communia and WIPO studies on private registration services. Also some milestones could be added. --Oneras (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:22, 12 March 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.