Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Seely MP, DL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Seely MP, DL

This article, and everything else created by anonymous user 63.117.78.2 last night, seem to be genealogical information on the Seely family, and probably copied from some database. Some individuals may be encyclopedic, but many, I'm sure, are just like this one. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Ken 13:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Having seen the error of my ways, I think this article should be kept and cleaned up, not deleted. Ken 19:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Could someone add the other titles of articles created by anonymous user 63.117.78.2, to make cleaning things up easier for whatever admin comes along and closes the VfD? jglc | t | c 13:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I went through the contributions for this and the other IP this user was using last night and added all non-notable individuals to VfD. There were fewer than I expected, as most are peers. Ken 13:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • The others should go, but this man, as is pointed out below, was an MP. Keep. jglc | t | c 14:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs cleanup, obviously, but former members of parliament seem eminently encyclopedic to me. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 13:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but MP 1847-48 and 1861-85? I would agree that a simple list of MPs might be useful, but there's nothing notable about most of them, just as there's really nothing notable about most members of Congress. Ken 13:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've taken the liberty of redirecting this one to Charles Seely, since it that the exact same content, and that had the correct name. Going to merge the VFD thingies now. Morwen - Talk 13:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup--all members of Parliament, like all members of U.S. Congress and all other national legislatures, are encyclopedic. I normally don't use this, but Wikipedia is not paper. Meelar (talk) 14:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Charles Seely was one of the longest serving Members of Parliament in the 19th Century. He was a well-known philanthropist and land owner in the United Kingdom and the Isle of Wight. He hosted Guiseppe Garibaldi on his visit to London and Isle of Wight which is covered extensively by the London Illustrated News and other notable journals of the time. Members of Parliament in the [United Kingdom]] during the 19th Century were influential given United Kingdom dominance in world affairs at the time, Industrial Revolution etc.
    • unsigned comment by User:Cseely
  • Speedy keep and wikify. All MPs are notable. David | Talk 14:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Also see: See UK National Archives for family estates [[1]]-note Barons Sherwood refers to great grandson of Charles Seely herein and Seely family is common to all associated Seely family entries and Isle of Wight record office for Seely family estates [[2]]. All Seely family MP entries can be verified.
    • unsigned comment by User:63.117.78.2
  • Keep a cleaned up article on this MP, but I do suspect the original contributor was merely cutting and pasting from another website. Average Earthman 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand with most of the information from Cseely's comment above. (Delete all the Seelys who weren't Members of Parliament.) Barno 16:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You can't be serious about nominating a member of Parliament. CalJW 16:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this one. MP=notable. But needs to rectify the current copyvio problem first. 23skidoo 17:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I am the author and I note copyright violations. This is my family member listed. Are you suggesting that i re-write the entry? I cannot believe that i dont have a right to my family's biographical data. i know most of it by heart!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.78.21 (talk • contribs) 9:32, 14 July 2005

  • Note: You have a right to your family's biographical data. Wikipedia does not have a right to the copyrighted contents of a published reference work without proper citation of that work. If you truly have your entire family's genealogy memorised, it should be but the work of a few scant minutes to re-create it. jglc | t | c 19:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Will rewrite later and post.

thankyou--do you suggest i re-write the entries or site the reference work?

  • Personally I would rewrite of all the articles, rather than a citation added to them. The general test applied for a fair use claim is the percentage of the work that's copied, versus the percentage that isn't. Adding a citation leaves the copied material intact, and obviously copied. Rewriting it will change the format, even if the data is the same as presented in your source (which you should still cite). It may also let you add some biographical detail that's not present in your source, which would further differentiate your article from the source. You might want to create a custom template, since there are a lot of Seelys, it seems. :-) Ken 20:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have re-written all of the entries. How long do i have to wait for approval? Several of them are marked for copyright infringment, which i no longer believe is the case, since i have written them mostly from memory.

  • Per the copyright violation notice, if you've rewritten the articles and placed the rewritten versions in the correct location (temp pages under the main article) they'll replace the notice when it's cleaned up. There's a seven day waiting period for this. In the mean time, continue to maintain the articles in their current location; if you need to link to one, I think you would link to the main article.Ken 21:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it's a copyvio. JamesBurns 03:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite the copyvio, but we should have an article on all MPs. James F. (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.