Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 30

Anabolic steroid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was deleted because Adam Cuerden thought one section of the page was copyrighted, In reality the single section paraphrased the source and the terminology and wording was vaguely similar. The person concluded that if a few sentences were copyrighted then the entire page must be copyrighted(despite it's being several years old) so he deleted the entire page without even bothering to find other instances of copyright or discussing it on the articles talk page after having removed the suspected content. The user has been addressed here on the articles talk page [[1]] Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted the content of the article and placed the deletion review tags at the top of the text. I'm sure this can be resolved amicably. Tim Vickers 17:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried that a major contributor is claiming that quotes that are extremely near the original aren't copyvio - that's exceptionally worrisome. It makes my worries of copyvio elsewhere all the stronger, as Wikidudeman was such a big contributor. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing a source isn't the same as copying it. If a source says "Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial." and I write "Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength." then it's not a copyright. If the source says "This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine." and I write "One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine." it is not a copyright. I really have no idea what you're basing your assertion that it is a copyright violation to vaguely paraphrase a source on. The two versions are hardly "identical" as you claimed on the articles talk page and could easily be changed even more if you believe they are too similar and would rather be on the safe side. NONE of this justifies deleting the entire article mind you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this should never have been deleted. The concerns of Adam are being discussed on the talk page of the article and the evidence that this is a copyvio is flimsy at best and most clearly this is not a case of CSD G12. Pascal.Tesson 17:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing a source isn't the same as copying it. If a source says "Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial." and I write "Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength." then it's not a copyright. If the source says "This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine." and I write "One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine." it is not a copyright. I really have no idea what you're basing your assertion that it is a copyright violation to vaguely paraphrase a source on. The two versions are hardly "identical" as you claimed on the articles talk page and could easily be changed even more if you believe they are too similar and would rather be on the safe side. NONE of this justifies deleting the entire article mind you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Pascal.Tesson. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, although those re-workings of the source should really be a bit more thorough, so that the it is no longer even close to the original, I don't think this meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Moreover, rather than assuming that other text that may be copyrighted exists in the article and deleting all of the content (including some I have written myself Adam), it would be best to just highlight the items you have found on the talk page. Tim Vickers 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the speedy tags should go off, and the offending paragraphs temporarily moved to the talk page, and then have the editors discuss it. Deleting it doesn't seem right. enochlau (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim Vickers and enochlau. The WORST scenario is I failed to paraphrase the source more. As Pascal.Tesson has said, the objections to it are flimsy at best and it should simply be changed a bit more so it's not as similar to the source it was taken from. As clarified above, The two versions are drastically different and hardly a cause for any concern. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that a few sentences were near, it's that the information was in the same order, and much of the phrasing was the same, and it was then attributed to a different source. However, I'll provisionally accept that no further copyvio exists, though a complete reworking'd probably be best, to move it further from problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Containing the same content and being in the same order and being attributed to a different source (not sure about that one) don't mean it's a copyright violation. I could of quoted an entire sentence from them and it wouldn't have been a copyright violation. I paraphrased what the source said and put it into my own words, sure it was in similar order, so what? Reworking the article isn't required, If you're concerned on specific aspects of it then I would suggest you address them as they come up, Right now you seem to only want the article gone or back to how it was a year ago. Take a look at how it was last year [[2]].

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad that was resolved so quickly. Thanks everybody. Tim Vickers 17:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can this request be removed since the problem has been solved? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lenny Loosejocks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as Non-notable Advert with insufficient sources. I arugue that sources were indeed missing, but Article was not non-notable, and not an advert. Maybe should be restored along with Pullyapantsup, Australia (possibly merged) and tagged with {{Unreferenced}} Kc4 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Valid AfD. Consensus is clear when the quality of the arguments (and policy) is taken into account. Eluchil404 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse you can't argue the AfD was wrong unless you have a strong argument (like coming up with those sources). DRV is mainly concerned with whether the deleting administrator's actions were reasonable. And asking for an unreferenced article is be undeleted so you can add an unreferenced tag is scoffable. -N 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment why waste the effort of creating the article in the first place, most of the source are the lenny games themselves. Kc4 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • A lack of secondary sources makes a prima facia case for non-notability. Articles on minor subjects without independent sources are routinely deleted as inappropriate for Wikipedia. That doesn't imply any particular judgment on the subject itself (I happen to really like the games in question) but rather goes to the appropriate scope of an encyclopedia and the necessity for attribution of content. Eluchil404 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closing admin this wasnt deleted as an advert that was the previous WP:CSD deletion which was under G11, that discussion in January concluded it wasnt advertising, hence the deletion wasnt appropriate, though it also indicated it was probably WP:CSD#A7(non notable). This AfD raised the issue of notability while the majority opinion was to delete, the keep opinions didnt offer anything to establish notability, the one source provided was only a game review there was nothing in the review to established it as being notable. Gnangarra 09:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Closing admin followed clear consensus; no case. DRV is not the Supreme Court. Orderinchaos 12:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment User:Klingoncowboy4 suggested I come here as the closing admin. Sorry, I don't have a mop it wasn't me. My suggestion was for a merge but I can see why it would have been deleted.Garrie 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Howarth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

My concern here is that the discussion was speedily closed after notability guidelines created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket were cited. However, these guidelines do not appear in Wikipedia:Notability, either as guidleines or a proposal. Instead, they are confined to the Wikiproject page, and appear to have been decided on by Wikiproject participants. Notability proposals put forward by Wikiprojects which are listed under WP:NOTE would be a different case, as then the whole community would get a chance to take part in the discussion. However, confining the discussion to a Wikiproject means most people are unaware of proposals, even though they could end up being cited in AfD. This seems to me to be something of a walled garden. I'd say that only notability/inclusion criteria that come about via discussions on Wikipedia:Notability pages should be cited as consensus decisions in AfD debates. Therefore, I propose the article be relisted in AfD Lurker 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• A speedy keep is a procedural not a substantive decision. If you think the article should be deleted, just relist it yourself. You don't have to come to DRV. Pan Dan 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article was created (by myself) and speedily kept by longstanding principles on WP:CRIC, and WP:SNOW respectively. Going through another AfD will, I wholeheartedly believe, produce the same outcome as before, however, if you wish to do so, feel free. Bobo. 15:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• To refer to a Wikipedia:Notability guideline, here is the criteria for notability of athletes: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport" First-class cricket is the highest level of the game before we get to international contests, and is the level at which the vast majority (if not all) of the world's fully professional leagues are played at. This player played one such game, hence is notable. Andrew nixon 17:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• You can argue that the Wikipedia notability guideliners should be changed, but if the current clear guideline quoted by Andrew is to be changed then it needs to be replaced by something equally clear if we are to know where we stand. In the meantime, I can see no grounds for deleting the article. If the final decision is to delete it, then there are literally hundreds of other articles that logically should go as well. JH (talk page) 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Of course not all first class cricketers were professionals. Many were amatuers. That's why you need a clear line. First class or list A seems sensible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See Amateur and professional cricketers for the rather unusual quirks that apply here. Olborne 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Well, if there is a real notability guideline, then I see no need for relisting it. I raised it because of the citation of a Wikiproject page as a consensus notability guideline- I didn't realise there was something in the actual notability guidelines that would allow it to be kept. Nomination withdrawn Lurker 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All first class cricketers meet the notability requirement for sportsmen that have been established for a long time. Haddiscoe 00:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohamed Said (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted in 2005 with the following reason: '{{db-nocontext}}Dictator in algeria for 1 week'}. Provided the page content itself isn't ground for deletion I think the give reason alone is spurious. Also, two pages link to this page. meco 08:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• If it were me I'd probably just recreate this as a redirect to Islamic_Salvation_Front. As you can see from the log, the page content as simply the words "Dictator in algeria for 1 week". --Tony Sidaway 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I may have misread those words as the deleting admin's rationale for deletion. I'm not sure that I should have been able to assess this correctly. __meco 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against the creation of a properly referenced stub (or even a redirect as Tony suggested). Undeleting six words is not worth the effort it would require, and there is not, and has not been, any bar to starting anew here. Xtifr _tälk 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• I will, of course, as deleter, say that this was deleted totally in accordance with policy. :) But...There was basically *no content*... it said: "Dictator in algeria for 1 week". These sorts of deletions aren't done with any prejudice against a recreation, that actually has content (assuming it exceeds other deletability bench marks....which it should!). --Stephanie ^talk 11:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you seeing now that the article was in fact almost empty. __meco 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree: there was minimal content, but enough that the article could not be called "patent nonsense" (G1, the only speedy criteria that mentions a lack of content), and it certainly had context, so it didn't qualify as A1 either. I think the deletion was absolutely against policy, and if it had consisted of more than six words, I might actually care! :) Xtifr _tälk 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Oh come on...if he's notable, create the article. Don't waste time on DRV trying to restore a 6 word article. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You are mistaking me for an administrator with the ability to look at the content of deleted articles. __meco 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • In this case, the content is in the deletion summary that you quoted. WarpstarRider 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I can see that, now. I have re-created the article as a redirect. I intended to do that in any case, however, I was worried that the article that had been there had in fact some merit, which it didn't. __meco 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)