Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gongriding

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gongriding

Gongriding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Hoax article. Article's creator has removed the speedy tag multiple times. I realized that I had replaced it 3 times only after I had done it, but article's creator again removed tag before I could remedy my own 3rr mistake. All links and references go to snowboarding articles, even the ones purported to feature "gongriding." This is an elaborate attempt at vandalism. Funny, but we need to delete it. OfficeGirl 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It's not "an elaborate attempt at vandalism," it's elaborate vandalism. SolidPlaid 02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Very well done, of nearly Onionesque quality. When the author is done wasting our time, they should go apply there. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a museum on Wikipedia for such articles? Perhaps this one can be sent there. SolidPlaid 02:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Uncyclopedia if possible. Delete if not. Maybe this article will win a GA status there. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - one of the more elaborate vandalism attempts. Amusing. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with a move recommendation to something like Uncyclopedia - Although well crafted vandalism, this should be deleted because the fake sources make it difficult for us with real articles that are questioned to be able to say our article is really real. Amazed someone would spend so much time on this clearly fake article. Nesnad 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki then Delete - Move to Uncyclopedia (The picture is quite well done) and then delete as a HOAX. The user should stop editing on Wikipedia where he'll get blocked and go to Uncyclopedia where he'll get praised (Who knows, an FA even...). :) Spawn Man 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete - Funny as heck, but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If Uncyclopedia will take it, then it should be there. I blanked the page, because otherwise we have a massive live hoax sitting on the servers masquerading as a real article. FCYTravis 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki That article was truly a masterpiece, with a real Photoshopped image of a guy flying over a mountain with a gong. Too bad it's not suitable here, but may find a following in Uncyclopedia. Ha ha.--Alasdair 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Recently transwikied - Someone just uploaded it to Uncyclopedia here. Might be an A5 candidate soon ... :-) --Pekaje 12:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• I didn't know we could Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. Isn't that a copyvio? Corvus cornix 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

anything this user originally published on Wikipedia was released freely to the whole world, including Uncyclopedia, under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

Uncyclopedia uses Creative Commons, not GFDL. Corvus cornix 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But the user's medium of choice for publication was Wikipedia, and that's GFDL.OfficeGirl 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that anybody can take any material they want off of Wikipedia and copy it to any other site and because it was released to Wikipedia under GFDL, copying it wihtout attribution is not a copyright violation? Corvus cornix 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

YEP.OfficeGirl 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, why do we have so many sites reported at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks with letters going out warning people about committing copyright violations for copying Wikipedia content? Corvus cornix 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. There are some procedures, but they're very easy to comply with. But posting the content on Uncyclopedia after it first appeared on Wikipedia isn't an AfD matter. It looked like the creator of this article was constructing it in Wikipedia originally. It's a chicken or the egg question-- if it was on Uncyclopedia first then this is a COPYVIO deletion matter.OfficeGirl 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a copyvio. Anything published on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, and unless the authors have explicitly stated otherwise, any published copies must also be published under the GFDL. The Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike license, which Uncyclopedia uses, is not the GFDL. --Carnildo 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, we can't technically transwiki, because of the licensing issue. However, since it was an Uncyclopedia user that violated copyright, and we're just going to delete the article anyway, it is of little concern to Wikipedia. If the author(s) wish to pursue legal action, they'll have to take it up with Uncyclopedia, but given the articles content that would be kind of self-defeating. --Pekaje 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And that is a separate issue altogether than this AfD. Here we are only discussing whether to delete this article from Wikipedia, not enforcing Wikipedia copyright infringements occurring on other websites.OfficeGirl 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, we were discussing Transwikiing it to Uncyclopedia, which is moot now, but would be a copyright violation if it were to occur via a Transwiki. Corvus cornix 22:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the hoax - It's been blanked by User:FCYTravis anyway. --SGT Tex 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete patent nonsense.KTo288 21:31, 16 September 2007 (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.