Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walterclough Hall

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 Keep. Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walterclough Hall

Copied from [1], a personal genealogy site. The Website doesn't appear to be a commercial venture and anyway genealogy sites purposefully exist to spread information so copyright may not be as much of an issue. At any rate, it's still a genealogy-related article that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, and editors with a better working knowledge of WP's copyright policies may also wish to evaluate. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this thing was built in 1375 or something. Kappa 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it needs to be cleaned up some. Devotchka 18:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Connected with Emily Bronte. CalJW 22:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Historic building with significant connections to notable author. Notable building but copyvio of source nominated by Katefan0. Copyright status needs to be cleaned up. Capitalistroadster 00:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am the author of this article, and while I did consult the above web page, the amount of material I used is miniscule. In fact the duplicate material on that page IS credited to me and was extracted from a private email of mine to the author of that page, so how is this a copyright issue? I have just asked that author to remove the same from his web site. -- jgk168421 29 October 2005 (AEST)
• Keep building with long and notable history, but clean up. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The material on the aforementioned web page has been removed as IT was in breach of MY copyright as the author. A limited amount has been retained, with my permission, where it refers directly to the contents of that page's family tree. I consider the aforementioned copyright problem to be now resolved. -- jgk168421 13:13, 2 November 2005 (AEST)
• Note Information is not copyrightable. So if someone has data on a webpage about such-and-such place being built in 1386 or that Harry Schmoodle lived there, that information is not protectable. Text is copyrightable, but the underlying information and facts are not. 207.69.137.36 21:20, 29 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.