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 keep, in the expectation that all parts of the article that violate copyright (if any) will be excised shortly. Sandstein (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The primary author put this up for peer review, but sadly, it belongs here instead. Every word of the descriptive text in this long list article is a copyright violation from the Austrian Mint website. You can see it by picking any coin with a footnote next to its name, and clicking on the referenced source. You'll find the exact same paragraphs for each coin in the list, as well as all the same images. This article has so much copyvio that it has essentially nothing that isn't lifted from the Austrian Mint, and thus, it needs to go. Ig8887 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The article seems good to me. The article just needs sorting out a bit. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only point that I saw in doubt was whether it should be deleted, or SPEEDY deleted. According to WP:COPYVIO, an article that is entirely comprised of copyright violations should be reverted to a previous non-violating edition. No such edition exists, so the official policy says it should be deleted. To be clear: This is an article that has had exactly one author, and is more than 90% copyright violation. What possible rationale is there for keeping it? Is there a WP:SEEMSGOODTOME that trumps copyright violations? --Ig8887 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the main writer of the article, and I completely understand what Ig8887 is saying. In the defence of the article, and not my defence, I would like to say a few things:

- It took me months to find all the information for the silver and gold euro coins of different countries (for some countries I am still investigating), which I am still putting together in Wikipedia. Unfortunately or fortunately, the Austrian mint is one of the few mints that gives extensive information on the coins they mint. It also happens, coincidently, that Austria is also the first country in the euro zone alphabetically, and that is the only reason I started from there. As you can see, I am currently working on Belgium, and there is no information at all from the Belgian mint web site, not even in Dutch or French.

- The description of the coins in the article can be changed, by using better English, and I will work it out extensively if I need to in order not to be the exact description of the Austrian mint (that was the main reason to ask for review).

- The description in the cited web site is a description of a currency coin, which itself does not violate any copyright. Even and ad-hoc personal description of a small item like that will be very similar to the one cited in the Austrian mint site.

- All the references to the Austrian mint can be removed. I put that on purpose there, so people know where exactly the main information came from, and it is not "made of" information. I thought that would be fair for the Austrian Mint web site. I wrote them a few weeks back telling them I am building a wiki article about all gold and silver coins in the euro zone and that I was referencing to their site. I asked them to update their English text of all coins, since all coins from 2007 onwards did not have any description. They never replied, but all the information of all coins in their site is now updated.

- I am planning to do a similar article for all the gold and silver euro coins of all the countries in the euro zone. You do not need to, but believe me on this one: such information does not exist on the web or it is staggered in hundreds of sites in at least ten different languages. I have tons of mails to different sources, friends, colleague collectors, and they all agree is a shame that information like this one does not exists (or cannot be easily found).

- I am open to suggestions of any kind, even writing to the Austrian mint and asking for their permission if needed, but I strongly believe that once all countries in the euro zone have a wiki page explaining as detailed as possible their gold and silver euro coins mintage, it will be very valuable information for all the numismatic enthusiastic.

- I am working on other non-numismatic articles as well, creating references in the articles of the different motives of the coin back to the coin (check Vienna Philharmonic or St. Benedict for example). Someone told me that was a good idea, since lots of people do not know that some of their favourite places, figures, objects, people, histoy events ... etc. has been the main motives of silver and gold coins that can be preserve for ever. I personally thought that information in the other articles was really cool. Obviously I am carefully referencing back in this article as well.

- Please take a look at the stats, it has been only less than a month and it is receiving 40+ hits per day. That have to mean something right?

Allow me a few days and I will change all the texts. I will re-submit for peer-review then. Apologies, but I am a newbie to Wikipedia, I hope you can forgive me, let me work on the article, and let the article survive, I think it deserves it. Best regards. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Requires a cleanup to remove any copyvio. ChessCreator ChessCreator (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is it actually copyright violation? I can't make out whether the source text actually is copyrighted; I don't know what claim the Austrian goverment makes, but anything published by the U.S. government is explicitly public domain. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I cannot find a copyright statement on the website. Government copyrights do, however, vary by country. For example, nearly everything on British Government websites is covered by Crown copyright and not public domain. – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject itself has sufficient notability. If there are any copyvio issues they can be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to add that I have changed all descriptions of the first section of the article (year 2002), hopefully this section is alreayd copyvio free. Please let me know if I should continue working in the rest of the article in order to set this issue. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to update that 50% or the article have changed (Vienna Philharmonic, 2002, 2003 and 2004 sections). I hope all the work put in this article can survive after the 50% left is changed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I don't see why there is any hurry to delete an article when there are people willing and participating in the sorting out of the current copyright Issue (if its even copyright) Kevin hipwell (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.