Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code of non-infringement

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. ✗plicit 00:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code of non-infringement[edit]

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

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

It does not seem to be a real thing, I could not find any mention of this code. I would opt for a redirect to Intellectual rights to magic methods, but if this is a hoax, it should be deleted. Broc (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Law. Broc (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources that I can find on this are principally related to the Clown Egg Register, and describe this rule as "unwritten". We really cannot have an article about a rule that isn't formally recorded in an encyclopaedia whose content is supposed to be verifiable. There are plenty of sources about the Clown Egg Register, in contrast. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm keen to see other opinions, but this was a fun one to check. There's a mention about the code in the context of McDonald's in a book "by Wikipedians" and it's been discussed "according to Wikipedia" by a law firm. Another law firm also talks about it, but the article postdates our entry. A possible WP:ATD is a merge with Intellectual rights to magic methods, incorporating also the Clown Egg Register (relevant article). The article creator is still semi-active on Wikipedia, so I do hope Pedant can jump in. I'm not raising my hopes that this is, by some distance, the longest hoax (though if it is, the content would be fitting). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I found something interesting in this scholarly article [1], where the code is defined as the Antiappropriation norm (page 1333) and in this glossary: [2] where it's referred to as "Code of the Clowns". So I wouldn't get my hopes up for the longest hoax. However, the fact it does not have a unique denomination and is only loosely defined makes me wonder if such "code" deserves its Wikipedia page (and if the current title is correct). Broc (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm getting a few gsearch results for "anti-appropriation norm", but only ever applied to stand-up comedy rather than clowns. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is one problem with unwritten rules: we don't even have names for them. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find anything about this code. The clown egg registry was interesting however... Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find RSes tusing the phrase "code of non-infringement" with regard to clowns. The Clown International Egg Registry ([3]) appears to be notable and might be something I decide to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others and my prior comment. If this exists at all, we don't have sufficient sources to support it. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2024 (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.