Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LA Freewaves (2nd nomination)

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 after a cleanup, and assume good faith that it will be cleaned up and cleared of copyvio problems. Turnstep 06:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LA Freewaves

GNU Free Documentation License gives permission to copy. Nobody has attempted to make changes to the article to make it fit the criteria. --Freewaves 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

2nd nomination: Still copyvio. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Copyvio should be handled through WP:CP, but more importantly, this is blatant advertising that does not have a place in the encyclopedia. As far as the copyright issue, permission wasn't asserted properly. Maybe someone experienced in copyright assertions can direct the creating editor on how to assert copyright. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posted my assertion on WP:CP. I want to debate the claim that this is "blatant advertising." Freewaves is a nonprofit organization that hosts film festivals. Why is there such an outcry when all the page is doing is documenting the founder/director, organization, recent festivals, and recent artists? Put it up to debate.

I decided to change my vote to keep, as long as it's cleaned up. --Bigtop 19:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That is what AfD is meant for exactly, to put this up to debate. Wildthing61476 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I disagree with User:Bigtop and User:Kungfuadam on both issues of copyright violation and the accusation of advertisement. I propose that if LA Freewaves is deleted for "advertisement" then any art event, artists, organization, festival is deemed advertisement. Furthermore, I want to say that User:Kungfuadam did not apporach me to change the text he deemed to be "advertisement" nor did he inform me of what text he believed to be "advertising" upon my request. I believe User:Kungfuadam is abusing his power as an admin and jeapordizing the dissemination of valuable information concerning the art world, especially new media art. I also want to say that there are other wikipedia pages that mention LA Freewaves, and so this is a notable organization/ film festival. User:Freewaves

• Neutral Delete VERY weak keep As the page current only have a copyvio on it, I cannot give a reasonable answer on this. However, if the page was nothing more than cut and pasted text from another webpage, then by all means delete. I'm convinced now that there is no way to write this article with it being a copyvio, or in such a way that it is unencyclopedic It looks better, but I'm still shaky on this page. Wildthing61476 21:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was asked by the Director of LA Freewaves to create this wiki page. She has given me permission to use the material on Freewaves for this purpose. I have submitted this information to WP:CP upon the request of User:kungfuadam. He then proceeded to inform that the article would get deleted anyway because it was "blatant advertising" but did not inform me on what text he accused was advertisement upon my request. --Freewaves 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally, it's frowned upon to create an article that is just copy and pasted from another website, even if you do have permission to post it. Wildthing61476 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I could work on the text, but does the entire page really have to be deleted?--Freewaves 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can make the page read less like an advertisment and more like an encyclopediac article, then yes and I'll support it. Wildthing61476 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can certainly do that. Is there any way to get the page back up so I can edit? Or should I be doing editing in the temp page? Also, what parts do you think resemble advertising?--Freewaves 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have edited the LA Freewaves page to discard any subjective words (rhetoric) that might be mistaken for advertising. Look over for yourself in the temporary page. Can someone please restore my page?--Freewaves 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think deleting the entry would deprive future generations of a piece of the Los Angeles underground film scene that otherwise would not be recorded except in print and the festival's website--Freewaves 01:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I read the temp file and I'm sorry it STILL reads like the website. Wildthing61476 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well, where else could I retrieve information about the organization and festival? The point is I can change all of the text that sounds like rhetoric, but the fact is, Freewaves deserves to be documented, it's part of the history of Los Angeles film festivals. If Sundance is allowed to stay, Freewaves should also be allowed to stay. It should be REVISED NOT DELETED. User:Freewaves
  • Comment I read the Sundance Film Festival article, and THAT reads like an encyclopedic article. the current article in question just looks like copy and paste from the website, which is NOT encyclopediac, but advertising. Wildthing61476 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Innstead of censoring information, why don't you guys try to change it to fit your standards?--24.205.22.26 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless cleaned up, removing the massive list of artists, and with reliable sources cited to verify the article and ensure that the group meets WP:ORG guidelines. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Extensive changes have been made to the page.--69.232.179.158 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless cleaned up (assuming it's possible).Weak keep. The /temp page is still full of copyvio from the freewaves site (intro paragraph and whole non-obviously-worded sentences in descriptions of the festivals, for example), is POV and non-excyclopediac ("nibble subversively at the crumbs left by Hollywood"). It's got a large list (not a good sign) of links to external sites (shouldn't be such a major component of the content) that are often NN: instad, consider highlighting a handful of major entries (the winners?). DMacks 06:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Not sure it's notable enough to have a page, but the /temp page seems mostly fixed for my more serious content concerns. DMacks 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've advised User:Freewaves about how he can rework the article to try and remove the copyvio (even so far as to recommend that he immediately submit the article to Peer review for criticism). However, whether the article stays or goes will depend on how much of my (and the PR reviewers') advice he has taken. For the moment, I'll sit on the fence with this one. --JB Adder | Talk 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• The temp page has been submitted for peer review.--Freewaves 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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.