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 keep. No credible copyright infringement claim has been presented, and there is no consensus to delete on other grounds. The nominator should take more time to familiarize themselves with WP:COPYRIGHT as well as Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table of handgun and rifle cartridges[edit]

Table of handgun and rifle cartridges (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)

I am proposing this page be deleted for the reason that it is a copy of copyrighted materials. It is copied from books that are copyrighted that are not freely distributed and it may also be copied from website which are copyrighted. Items are copyrighted for a reason. The data on this page is generally available only through paid books, or from sales literature which is given away in expectation of making a sale. This page, in that regard, can be seen to be depriving publishers and companies who make these products of profits. Digitallymade (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I HAVE corrected some of the errors on that page, I PAID for the sources that were used to create that page. I DO NOT BELIEVE that the information there is public domain. If it is, then I want to see the PROOF that it is. If you can prove it's PD then I'll withdraw the suggestion. I oppose ALL material that is copied from books or copyrighted websites. I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN this data is copyrighted, or else I would not say anything about it. Digitallymade (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I already said, this is clearly a dispute about the content. Raise your issue on the Talk page of the article, don't just nominate a 14-year-old article because you don't like what it says. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all Copyrighted material. This is the land of the lawsuit. Publishing data that is critical to safety, such as firearms cartridge data, EVEN if it's only a copy of a copyrighted page (by the way some of the copied material comes from pages that are specifically marked as copyrighted, accrues liability should someone, for example, insert an incorrect cartridge based on a misunderstanding of a chart such as this one. I was close to an incident in Resisterstown, MD some time ago when a man cut off his arm with a chain saw, due to incredible stupidity, and blamed the people who rented the saw to him. That's why, in the USA, you might by a $.02 item and get a safety manual that cost a $1.00 to reprint. One of my job titles decades ago was "Safety Officer" so I'm not happy when I see things that can allow law suits, even when the majority of people don't see any harm to it. .223 WSSM has largely disappeared. That may be because of the number of firearms that exploded due to someone inserting the wrong cartridge in it and firing it. Liability law, as opposed to criminal law, assumes you are liable from the first and there are many wealthy attorneys (like Dan Schneider who purchase the Washington Redskins for $2 billion) who benefit. I do not believe that taking risks is a reasonable action. Besides, if it is public domain as someone suggested and I do not believe, why have it here? Let the interested parties get it from an authoritative source, since this one never will be. Digitallymade (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about lawsuits, let me ask you this - do you have any actionable interest in any of the copyrighted material? If so, you haven't disclosed your Conflict of Interest - which is something you must do - see WP:COI Exemplo347 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted, but it should be more focused. What is the purpose of using manufacturers data? Why does one cartridge use manufacturer A's data and another one uses manufacturer B's data? Who determines what are the highest values for each load? I believe that the list should cite saami.org, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute and should list the cartridge specifications - those numbers are standardized. Bullet weights and energy numbers are way to variable and often proprietary. (This is my first time contributing to a discussion. If I did it wrong, sorry, please let me know how to improve, thanks.)--Comfortable.chairs (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comfortable.chairs (talk • contribs)

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.
More