Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compulsory Sampling License

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. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory Sampling License

Subject is largely original research and speculative in nature. Some discussion of this topic in music blogs; however, not enough to support the claims of the article. In addition, the text reads like an essay or a proposal, not like an enycyclopedia article. While a CSL strikes me as a good idea, until reliable sources exist to describe such a thing (especially since it doesn't exist in law currently), Wikipedia ain't the place to discuss it. EngineerScotty 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The concept doesn't exist in U.S. law, but I think other countries have such licenses (not that the article refers to them). I am not an IP lawyer or connected with the music industry, so I can't really speak with any authority. But I think all the expressed criticisms seem fair. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, contains mostly WP:OR and is clearly what Wikipedia is NOT. --Evb-wiki 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL and hence WP:OR. This is a speculative article and not suitable for WP EyeSerene^TALK 10:27, 29 June 2007 (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.