Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews of Rhode Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews of Rhode Island

This page is a classic example of an article violating the No Original Research Policy. It's at least 5 or 6 pages long. Hell, it even lists its author. I prodded it, but my tag was removed. Alphachimp talk 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Don't we also have a rule against essays of this sort, also? --Bill (who is cool!) 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think it's WP:NOR. Alphachimp talk 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Answer: This article was published by the Rhode Island Jewish Historical Association in 1985. The original author, Geraldine Foster, is a known historian and writer in Rhode Island. The article was copyrighted. It was uploaded with the consent of the Rhode Island Jewish Historical Association president. What's so wrong about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebrown (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Errr...because it looks like it fails WP:NOR? --Bill (who is cool!) 00:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - because only the author can authorize release under the GFDL, not a previous publisher who does not hold the copyright on the material. If it wasn't the author who gave permission, it's still a copyvio. Ekajati 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Well, that and WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a place for verbatim copies of sources. Ytny 01:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, definitely (and admitedly) original research. WP should be a tertiary source, not a secondary one. -- H·G (words/works) 01:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this is indeed copyrighted, shouldn't it be speedied? Aplomado talk 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete there could also be copyvio issues here hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. That's what I initially thought, so I started searching random text. Even though it is copyrighted, it is not published on the web, hence this nom instead of a db-copyvio from me. Alphachimp talk 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - as above, very likely a copyvio. IP address claims they have permission - would that include permission to edit and mangle as time goes on? Maybe Wikisource? I feel bad when I vote delete and somebody obviously put in a lot of effort, but that's the way it is... should delete the various images too most likely... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    I understand your concerns, but I doubt that anyone would type an essay that long with sources in their Wikipedia browser window. It's an original copywritten paper. We can't find a URL, because it's not published online. Alphachimp talk 04:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep remove copyvio and stubbify. Did you see the list of 13 sources at the end, many dealing only with Jewish history of rhode island! This is a notable verifiable topic. Deleting because it is OR makes sences when the topic itself is OR. If there is OR in a notable topic remove it - don't delete the whole ariticle. Out of 6 pages I am sure we can find a paragraph to keep. I don't believe that AFD should be used as a way of cleaning up articles. Jon513 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. No....the whole thing is the copyvio. The author even admitted to it here. Alphachimp talk 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOR and WP:COPYVIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Theres no copyvio if the author allows it. SynergeticMaggot 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In that case, this belongs on Wikisource. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete per nom Michael 06:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or Transwiki if the folks at Wikisource take it. ~ trialsanderrors 07:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. One unsigned comment in an AfD debate does not constitute author's consent, it's still copyvio in my eyes. It may be suitable for Wikisource with actual author's consent, but not Wikipedia. -- NORTH talk 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource, as it appears to be a copy of source material, which we don't do. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My question is: why is this designated as "copyvio" if the publishing organization authorizes it? There are publications by the R.I. Jewish Historical Association in the Library of Congress. It is a reputable organization. The Association has authorized placing this item on Wikipedia. In searching Wikipedia, one finds all kinds of apalling postings under headings with "Jews" in the title, many of them arguably offensive. This posting contains factual, verifiable information, complete with sources. This entire discussion sets a question on the value and impartial validity of Wikipepdia postings. Canna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebrown (talk • contribs)
Comment - as I noted above, "would that include permission to edit and mangle as time goes on?" That's one big concern. The second is that WP is not supposed to be a repository of source information - that is what WikiSource is for. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - because permission to publish does not typically make the publisher the author's agent. Permision to publish is usually a one-shot deal - to publish in a specific issue of a specific journal. Only the auhor can give permission to re-publish in a different venue. Ekajati 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd like to make it perfectly clear that this is not me exercising some personal vendetta against the Jewish people (in Rhode Island, Israel, or the World) or against some individual person. The content of this essay hardly matters to me at all. As any reader of AfD discussions will know, Wikipedia is Not an indiscriminate collection of information. No Original Research is a policy on Wikipedia, meaning that it has been vastly agreed upon by the entire community. I understand Stevebrown's frustration with having this article nominated for deletion, but I strongly question his attempt to boil this down into a debate over racism on Wikipedia. I think any editor would agree that my course of action was entirely reasonable (prodd'ed for WP:NOR, prod removed without comment, nominated for AfD) and precedented on Wikipedia. Alphachimp talk 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment* I uploaded this article yesterday, because I found nothing on Wikipedia about the Jews of Rhode Island. I am a member of the Board of the RI Jewish Historical Assoc. and we thought that this information would be valuable for people who are interested in history. If the powers-that-be think it would be better under Wikisource, that is fine with me. The entire idea was to get information out there for people to use.
  • Comment It seem very strange to be call this a copyvio. Either you trust to anonymous and there was permission, or you don't trust him and there is no reason to believe it is copyrighted at all. The only source that this text is copyrighted if from the anonymous source. (and BTW all of wikipedia is anonymous, not signing in makes you less anonymous not more!). Jon513 12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as written because of WP:NOR. Wikipedia can certainly have an article on the Jews of Rhode Island. But it should not be a word-for-word reprint of a single existing article. Wikipedia articles should never have just one author. Geraldine Foster could be one of several sources for such an article. But as currently written, this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:NOR says wikipedia is "source-based research" -- not merely a reprint of a single source. I'd encourage the Board of the RI Jewish Historical Assoc. to collaborate in putting together something more appropriate to wikipedia to replace this. Scorpiondollprincess 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ditto. All articles are out in the open for other editors to tear up (in a beneficial way) as the Wikipedia community sees fit. Thus, posting an article written and copyrighted by a single author isn't really appropriate and doesn't make much sense on a wiki. Aplomado talk 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR Abcdefghijklm 15:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Transwikify or stubbify E Asterion u talking to me? 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails WP:NOR. However, if this article is indeed published and verifiable, it could be used as a source reference for an article on the topic, but the article itself is inappropriate for WP. Ekajati 20:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Martinp23 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR or transwiki to wikisource.--Nick Y. 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki this version [1] to wikisource. They can accept original source material in whole. We need an encyclopedic article written using multiple source documents unsigned by any author and open to revision by the next person that looks at it. GRBerry 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. WP:NOR, source article can be preserved on Wikisource, but not Wikipedia. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per WP:NOR --T-rex 01:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • transwiki current article to Wikisource, stubbify an editable article. --Shirahadasha 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not OR, because it simply isn't an article in the first place. I can't imagine wikisource would want it either, if it's really copywritten. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but with heavy editing and remove any offending material. This article can be included in Category:Jewish American history, which has similar articles, such as Jewish history in Pennsylvania and Jewish history in Ohio. What this article needs is time to be edited via {{Wikify}} but not deletion. IZAK 07:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up a lot. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit - there is, or rather should be, no question this is a noteworthy topic. Copyright and NOR violations are, of course, unacceptable; but the remedy is not to delete if the topic is noteworthy. --Leifern 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio but follow WP:BITE the uploader is a new contributor, who has gotten a bunch of nasty templates on his/her talk page for unclear copyright issues. Can someone leave a nice note discussing this situation? Re-upload might be ok if copyright issues are completely resolved, or Wikibooks might be a better home than the encyclopedia. Phr (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article but delete all copyvio materials. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Either fixup asap or delete. Article reads like a dramatical short story or a high school book report, not an encyclopedia article. Does not do justice to the subject. And if cleaned up, then rename as per IZAK. --Shuki 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment see WP:COPYREQ for what it may take to resolve copyright questions. I don't think the info we already have is enough to go on. We need to contact the author, basically, and get confirmation by email as discribed at that link. -- Phr (talk) 02:16, 21 July 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.