Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregovomab
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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete as unencyclopedic textdump. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
[edit] Oregovomab
Text dump of a research paper. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)
- Delete obviously original research. David | Talk 28 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up Did either of you bother to read this article? I didn't think so. This (despite its rather disorganized appearance) is a very well researched article with 23 references, regrettably not included. I have no idea how this qualifies as patent nonsense; just because you don't get it doesn't make it so. Google is your friend. Denni☯ 2005 June 29 03:39 (UTC)
- It is unclear where you have obtained the number 23 from. There are 0 references in the article. Where does the number 23 come from? Does it come from whatever copyrighted original article was copied&pasted here in violation of our copyright policy? Uncle G June 29, 2005 11:12 (UTC)
- A number of paragraphs quote reference numbers which must correspond to some actual references. As I said above, they are not included with this article, but I don't imagine someone would throw in fake reference number just for fun. I would also suggest you show good faith in the author of this article, Uncle G. I have found no evidence in Google of copyvio, and unless you yourself can provide proof, it is unfair to state this as fact. (Having been burned with this myself...) Denni☯ 2005 June 30 23:21 (UTC)
- Not every copyright violation is copied from a web page that the Google Web spider reaches, or even from a web page at all. Read what Simoncursitor said again. And as Quale says, the formatting of the wikitext, including the extra blank lines after many paragraphs and the obvious headers whose formatting has been lost, clearly indicates that this has been copied&pasted. Uncle G July 1, 2005 10:57 (UTC)
- A number of paragraphs quote reference numbers which must correspond to some actual references. As I said above, they are not included with this article, but I don't imagine someone would throw in fake reference number just for fun. I would also suggest you show good faith in the author of this article, Uncle G. I have found no evidence in Google of copyvio, and unless you yourself can provide proof, it is unfair to state this as fact. (Having been burned with this myself...) Denni☯ 2005 June 30 23:21 (UTC)
- It is unclear where you have obtained the number 23 from. There are 0 references in the article. Where does the number 23 come from? Does it come from whatever copyrighted original article was copied&pasted here in violation of our copyright policy? Uncle G June 29, 2005 11:12 (UTC)
- Denni: please don't misinterpret this: I'd be pleased to vote for a keep if it wasn't for the fact that 1) the article reads like promotional copy for the companies involved, and 2) it reads as if it's directly transcribed from a pharmaceutical source journal. I'm not expert enough to scan all these and take the decision, but until someone assures me this isn't a copyvio, I'm going to abstain. --Simon Cursitor 29 June 2005 06:57 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Really looks like a copyvio to me. No sources given, but clearly this is copy and paste from a single source. Quale 30 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
