Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Fogarty
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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Susan Fogarty
Delete too minor an author. Prodded and deprodded within 1/2 hour of creation. Now on dead end pages - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete One book, apparently only available on one site [1], from which this article is copied. Presumably a copyvio. Fan1967 02:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note The article even contains a typo ("grpahic" for graphic) identical to that site, indicating it's a straight copy-paste job. Fan1967 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above and nom. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per ALL above. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Ziggurat 03:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Certainly looks like a copyvio, but the subject of the article is not undeserving; Good Morning is a national TV programme. Perhaps all this needs is a rewrite? Ziggurat 03:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It has to be (mostly) deleted to expunge the copyright violation from the servers for legal reasons. (I've no opinion on the stub remaining after copyvio removal.) -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that this is not necessary unless the copyright holder specifically requests it (per WP:COPYVIO "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it"). Material rewritten / summarized from a copyvio source is not copyrighted itself, too. In any case, perhaps the best course of action is to delete this, and then rewrite as a stub. Ziggurat 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Kind of unclear whose copyright is relevant. Looks like this content was taken from the bookseller at [2], but most of that content was basically copied (edit slightly and mistyped) from the TV network site [3] mentioned by Ziggurat. Fan1967 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the usual practice where the entire content of the article is copyvio is to delete the article ; archival GDFL reasons don't apply to a large block of unedited copied text. I won't raise a fuss either way :) -- stillnotelf is invisible 12:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that this is not necessary unless the copyright holder specifically requests it (per WP:COPYVIO "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it"). Material rewritten / summarized from a copyvio source is not copyrighted itself, too. In any case, perhaps the best course of action is to delete this, and then rewrite as a stub. Ziggurat 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It has to be (mostly) deleted to expunge the copyright violation from the servers for legal reasons. (I've no opinion on the stub remaining after copyvio removal.) -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the stub as well. As notable as, um, me. Vizjim 09:43, 15 May 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.
