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. The Helpful One 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pencak Silat

[edit]
Pencak Silat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Okay guys, long text:

The article is (in my opinion) a copyright violation. The CopyVio was created in October 2007, when the article was “constructed” by copypasting sentences or complete sections from various sources and mixing it up with (hopefully) self-written stuff. Yesterday I discovered this and requested a speedy deletion.

It was declined, and the Admin told me that it would be better to go step-by-step through the article, find the sentences/sections that are CopyVios and remove them. His reasoning was that even if the copyvio-sections were removed, the article would still have enough “substance” to keep on existing, and that since 2007 certain parts of the article that initially were copyvios have by now been changed by several users so that they can’t be called copyvio anymore.

I did as the Admin said, but well, almost the complete article is CopyVio. And, if you compare the current version with the first one, you see that the difference is actually not that big. Approximately 90% of the article are still the same.

Take a look please at the very first version with copyrighted material. It is structured into 4 major sections: Introduction, terminology, history, styles & techniques.

Now, again, please compare this with the current versionand you’ll see that basically all of the copyvio stuff is still in there. If you remove it, all that's left is half an introduction and three paragraphs of the "History" section. Thus my suggestion is to delete the whole article and let it restart, hopefully under the supervision of someone who knows what is allowed in the Wikipedia and what not. DavidDCM (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the notability of Pencak Silat and would be among those that would re-create a new article. I just think that a complete re-start would be easier than trying to safe the text fragments of the current article (which are potential copyvios, too). Btw, I made a version with the copyvios being marked red: [1] --DavidDCM (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable the copyright material should just be removed even if it leaves a stub with only history. How would deleting it be easier, I don't get that part. Just delete everything except the part you know isn't copyvio, hit edit button, highlight, backspace, type "remove copyvio" in edit summary, hit save page. If someone later replaces it warn them about adding copyrighted material. Drawn Some (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, you convinced me that deletion is not the proper way for this article. I'll try to work on the article in the next few days. I only ask for one more advice: Should I completely remove the "History" section or keep the white part of the text? I could not find a source for that part, but maybe the website it was copypasted from does not exist anymore. It was added to the article at the same edit as all of the copyvio (red) stuff, so I think there's a reasonable suspicion that it might be copyvio as well? Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. --DavidDCM (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed all known copyvios (found two more sources in the meantime, so the article has been cut down even more).--DavidDCM (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow, this article is nominated for deletion? I am very surprised. Pencak Silat is a sport by itself. And is very well known among people in South East Asia. It is also in the SEA Games since 1980s. I don't think it should be deleted only because it contains copy vio materials. I shall give a hand to rewrite it if you need me to. (: Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if someone would support me building this article up again. :) But in regards to your surprise: Every article can be deleted if certain criteria are fulfilled. Being well known does not mean that an article can not be nominated for deletion. Even the article United States could be deleted if one of the criterias for deletion would be fulfilled. --DavidDCM (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what DavidDCM want is to do a partial deletion of the article back to completely non-copyright violation version. Thus, in order to do that, the article needs to be deleted to have a fresh start and reupload together with the history section without the copyright violation. If the copy vio entries are still in the history section, editors can easily revert or put back again the copyright paragraphs or sentences to this article. I think a history purge on the article is needed, just a history purge which needs the article deleted and recreated. ax (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know of an article where the history section purge is used. Polytechnic University of the Philippines article has lot of copy vio entries back then. Garion96 dealt with the article. He was able to delete the copy vios as well as the edits on the history section of the said article, but was able to retain the part of history section where there is no copy vio left. I do not know how to elaborate it more, but the article is still there although parts of the history section's edits with copy vios were gone and I was able to have a fresh start on the article. Of course, be sure to have a copy of the present state of the article, because as I see it, it has been rewritten without the copy vio. ax (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, not notability is the issue, for the third time. Please read the discussion before you post. What WP:Cleanup has to do with this is beyond my knowledge. --DavidDCM (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BEFORE which emphasises that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Also see WP:Copyright problems#Alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful for you to withdraw the nomination. JJL (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2009 (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.
More