Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleta Kirk Abrams

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was rewrite copyvio. The nominated artice has been listed at WP:CP, while a new article has been re-written on the temp. page. Joyous 20:56, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oleta Kirk Abrams

I can accept that this person may be noteworthy, but it reads more like a magazine article at the moment. Deb 22:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks as cut out from a tabloid. Oleg Alexandrov 00:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like this page was never posted to VfD. I'm finishing the process. No vote. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-16 15:50 Z

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. If they're notable someone else will come along and write a proper article. This one can go. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. (Sigh) It seems we are back to using VfD as a cure for all ills. This article if accurate clearly establishes that the topic is encyclopedic, and contains valuable content. As yet nobody has questioned its accuracy, so there are no grounds for deletion. Andrewa 16:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What is more, this is actually a copyvio by a newbie with no other edits. The source is the first Google hit I got. Rather than listing it as a copyvio, I think it's easier to stubify it and will. No change of vote. Andrewa 16:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Stubified. See the history for the original. It was probably less work to stubify this than to list it on VfD. Food for thought? Andrewa 17:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • But shouldn't the stub be written on a temp page, in order to delete the copyvio from history as well? I am confused as to whether this is important or not. / Tupsharru 18:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: If someone had listed it as a copyvio, then I would have been obliged to do this, yes. IMO we are not at all consistent as to whether this is important or not. I think the explanation might be that the copyvio procedures were written some time ago, before we had much experience in what was important, and are conservative. But until someone rewrites them, they should be followed. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it now, although it's still as much a tribute as encyclopedic. Wyss 18:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio boilerplate put on the page. Please follow proper procedures for copyright violations. RickK 00:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought I was, and I think you have just violated them. You have overwritten a good stub. What was the reason for this? No change of vote. Andrewa 12:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The proper procedure is to write the good stub in the /Temp page, so that the original page, with the copyvio in the history, can be deleted, and the /Temp page moved to the appropriate name. RickK 22:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: That's the procedure for listing a copyvio. Whether to do that was a line call IMO. The best thing would have been to list it as a copyvio in the first place, and not here. It was after all the first hit in the most obvious Google search! But the process already being off to a bad start, I don't think I was obliged to list it as a copyvio, although I did call people's attention to that fact just in case someone else wanted to. On the other hand, we do have a policy of preserving useful content, which you have violated. That's my only complaint. I've fixed it now. Andrewa 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if and when the copyvio is resolved. Megan1967 05:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• As this has been deleted as a copyvio, there is little point in continuing. However, as the founder of the first rape crisis centre in the US, she would warrant an article if omeone were to write one. Capitalistroadster 09:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are no copyright problems. I have restored the stub to Oleta Kirk Abrams/Temp, which is the proper place for it now the article has been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. That page's resolution process will now remove the offending history, and now it has been listed there that's the way to go IMO. But the normal procedure if a copyvio is removed by another contributor (me in this case) before it is listed on the copyvio page is not to list it there just to clean up the history, although it has often been discussed, see Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages. Andrewa 13:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The discussion you point to is not policy. RickK 22:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Agree. It's a discussion. No policy has been agreed. Andrewa 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the temp file and move into space. Capitalistroadster 18:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree (just to clarify my keep vote above). That is the proper procedure from here. Andrewa 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.