Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farley Mowat (Sea Shepherd vessel)

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. Sango123 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farley Mowat (Sea Shepherd vessel)

The entire article has been ripped out of the Farley Mowat's copyrighted description from the Sea Shepard site here [1]. I see no way the text can be salvaged, given it is entirely stolen. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio (though simply adding the {{copyvio}} template might have sufficed). -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's too late for a speedy deletion as it was created past 48 hours ago. --ColourBurst 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep -- this nomination for deletion is contrary to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Note: the portion of Problem articles where deletion may be needed devoted to copyright violations clearly states that when someone suspects that an article is a copyright violation they are supposed to apply the {{copyvio}} tag.
  • The nominator states: "The entire article has been ripped out of the Farley Mowat's copyrighted description..." I know, for a certain fact, that this article is not entirely a ripped off from a copyrighted source, because I started the article. The policy on copyright violations directs those concerned over a copyright violation to see whether the article can be reverted to a version prior to the insertion of material that violated someone's copyright. Following the stub I started numerous contributors made edits to the article. So, unless the Nominator can explain why they don't think the article can be salvaged, I suggest a speedy keep. -- Geo Swan 08:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Since it is no longer a copyvio, I'm changing my vote to keep. Unfortunately I don't think it can be speedied as Wikipedia:Speedy keep states that there must be a concensus. --ColourBurst 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I rewrote or removed the material that was a copyright violation -- I am perplexed that the Nominator could not see how the article could be salvaged. Since the sole justification the Nominator offered for deleting the article is no longer valid I am going to repeat my call for a speedy keep. -- Geo Swan 09:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the more blatant violations from the page, even though it essentially did the same thing as a delete, given that 90 percent of the article's contents was comprised of the violation material. Which brings to light another point- given that you created the article (and obviously have it on your watch list), why didn't you spot the insertion of roughly five paragraphs worth of plagarism from the Farley Mowat's homepage? Surely you visit the articles more than once every several months? Ex-Nintendo Employee 09:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't I notice that contributions were made to the article which were copyright violations? That would require more interest and familiarity with the Sea Shepherd site than I bring to the table. It was my interest in nautical matters that lead me to start the article, not my interest in the Sea Shepherds. There was a reference to the vessel Farley Mowat, which linked to the author, not the vessel. I had never visited that second external link before the {afd}.

I am not sure what you mean when you say I removed the more blatant violations from the page. I thought I had removed all the violations.

Since you seem familiar with the Sea Shepherd site, if you chose to revert the article to a later version, prior to the insertion of the copyright material, I would have no objection. FWIW, I believe this is the recommended action when you detect the insertion of copyright material. -- Geo Swan 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If there's copyvio material, it should be replaced, copyvio isn't a reason to delete an entire article Lurker ^haver 12:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if, as the comment suggests, the material has been rewritten. —Xyrael 16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the copyrighted material has been removed. -- Whpq 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (vote change) per all above, article looks acceptable now. -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:23, 12 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.