Kudzu.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Cox is a major, albeit privately held company. This is one of their products, whose competitors include other review websites such as Yelp, InsiderPages, CitySearch, etc., all of whom have Wikipedia entries. Kudzu.com has plenty of reliable published sources to cite. I see their billboards and hear their ads all of the time, and they just surpassed 100,000 user reviews of local businesses. Edmur 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are these reliable sources? Billboards and ads aren't reliable sources. I see nothing on a Google News Archive search [1] --W.marsh 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I just read an article about them on Forbes [2] and they're mentioned in a number of articles about local search [3].
  • The Forbes one is actually just a press release from the company, I'm not sure what "Clickz Experts" is. --W.marsh 00:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Found more: Kelsey Group [4], Multichannel News [5], KGTV in San Diego [6], The Arizona Republic [7]. These aren't minor sources.
• allow recreation situation changed since the last AfD and there now seem to be enough sources to make a reasonable stub/meet WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this isn't protected or anything, so why not just create an article instead of going through DRV? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment well, it did go through a previous AfD, so asking DRV for permission to recreate is understandable (although probably not necessary in this case). JoshuaZ 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well .. I guess it is an understandable precaution :) But so long as it is not a substantial re-recreation (and starting from scratch likely won't be) I see no reason Edmur can't go ahead and start the article now rather than waiting for DRV to finish. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I guess that being from the Phoenix area, I can certify that they have a pretty aggressive ad campaign, and the sources brought up above are all right, I guess. Endorse deletion, because there was nothing actually wrong with it, but without prejudice. Allow recreation if it can be kept within our content policies. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fargoth World Building Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was no discussion prior to either of the first two deletions. There were many references to outside, independant sources (8 in total, though I can easily submit 100), and the primary purpose of the article was not advertisment, but of explaining the pioneering position of Fargoth in the intellectual property relations between the online proffessional fantasy artist community and the online worldbuilding community. Fargoth itself set up the relationship and the standard that John Howe still has to today regarding intellectual property and the spreading of art, which has trickled down to become the standard for internet artists. For this reason, I refute the claims of advertisement and unimportance. Secondly, I apologize to the admin I cursed at, and for any mistakes I may have made in the placing of this complaint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos2546 (talk • contribs)

• Somewhat complicated history so I'll break down each deletion:
  • First version was deleted by PROD, but it now falls under spam deletion rules... obvious promotional text ("...we encourage you to join us...")
  • Next deleted version contains the exact same snippet of obvious promotion!
  • The final, third version, was actually not blatant advertising. The biggest assertion of importance, such as it is, was "Fargoth World Building Project is well known for it's involvement in the intellectual property laws". The reference for this was rpgnews, which looks somewhat reliable.
• So, I'd say undelete only the last versions, after the 2nd deletion. Someone will probably nominate it for deletion though, it will need to be improved a bit most likely. --W.marsh 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess should say Undelete as well, but I would ask for the whole article to be returned. I believe this to be fair because the FWBP is probably one of the best fantasy conworlds out there, almost certainly with the largest information base. It is notable, if only for that reason. I mean, if micropenises (where did I get that one? hmm...) or Bohemia Manor High School warrant an article then certainly one of the largest conworlding establishments in the world does as well? Cronos2546 00:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I had missed the new reference and text that W.marsh pointed out above and as such, it is claiming notability. I will reverse the speedy of the last incarnation and list the article at Afd. I would suggest that Cronos2546 read our policies on conflicts of interest and try to be more civil when discussing issues with other editors in the future. Shell ^babelfish 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Micropenis erect.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Micropenis erect.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted citing licensing concerns [8], although no specific licensing objection had been raised (image was pd-self, a photograph), and appeared to have sourcing information attached to it. (Policy does not seem entirely clear on whether a pd-self photograph needs any additional discussion of the source, or whether that is already implicit in pd-self template.) This had previously been up for IFD, and passed as a strong keep. Now it looks like censorship when it is deleted without discussion in this way. Silly rabbit 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from deleting admin: Image contained only ((pd-self)) and was marked as missing source information for more than 7 days. Shell ^babelfish 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The nominator is correct that policy has never been clear on whether pd-self is sufficient assertion of authorship absent any other information, but lately the consensus seems to be that a direct indication of source is required no matter what (after all, many editors mistakenly assume that if they own a print, they own the copyright, so a statement of "I took this photograph" is genuinely important). In this case, given that the uploader is a one-day SPA, I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. We should keep such images if they predate current policy and are uploaded by regular editors, but neither is true in this case. I really don't think censorship is the issue here. Chick Bowen 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • delete. i'm new to the community, but it makes since that there should be proper citation.Mil lonewolf 05:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The image was explicitly released into the public domain by Sara Mulholland when she uploaded it, and she indicated that it was her own work at that time. This is a proper citation, as long as the editor understands what it means to be entirely one's own work (i.e., not a derivative work). However, absent a specific objection that the source (e.g., "This wasn't a photo, but a scan." or "This image is located at the following url."), I see no reason to doubt that the template means what it purports to mean. This image was deleted, to the best of my knowledge, as part of an administrative tag and sweep. So it hardly could have suffered from any specific copyright-related problems. Silly rabbit 11:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But she didn't indicate that she created it; she only indicated that she was releasing it. As I said above, our experience shows us that there's a difference--this is not an abstract matter. Chick Bowen 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't abstract at all. When you upload a file [9] and select the licensing for pd-self, it says "You created this yourself, it is all your own work and release it into the public domain." The fact that some people don't understand what this means should not be grounds for deleting every image out there where the uploader does understand it. I fail to see how such an explicit declaration of authorship can be at all ambiguous. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Silly rabbit 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn While there is a fraction of pd-self images which are incorrectly marked, we have no reason to think that this one was incorrectly marked. JoshuaZ 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Abstaining for now per information from FloNight. Need to think about this more. JoshuaZ 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy after a passed XfD is normally not appropriate,, unless new copyvio has been discovered. DGG (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The last Ifd is not helpful becasue it was not about licensing but about if the image was actually a erect micropenis. Agreement that it is one, was the basis for the keep. Today by google search, I found this image on a spam-ish looking medical web site that has a copyright notice. That is the main reason I think the image needs to be deleted. I also think we need to be extra careful when evaluating images of living people. We know that penis images are often a source of vandalism or other mischief so we need to take extra caution with their licencing, I think. For that reason I do not think that we can give the benefit of the doubt here. FloNight 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Plagiarism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was put up for Speedy Deletion. However when a "hang on" tag was added, and indeed some additional material added in response to the claim that (CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance.) Extra material was ignored, no discussion ensued and then when the page was recreated it was subject to page protection. What is actually going on here? It is Festival which has taken many forms over the last twenty years.I thought the idea was that the matter should be discussed before adminstrators took such action?Harrypotter 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a hilarious pagename to come up considering the DRV directly under it. As for this article, endorse deletion. Just saying an event was held on days X and Y, was inspired by so and so, and here's the press release... these are not really claims of importance. I suggest recreating the article with uh, frankly, a statement of what this thing was (film festival? convention? kegger?) then a statement about why it was important, and one or two reliable sources that wrote about this event. --W.marsh 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that exactly what I was setting out to do when the page got deleted. I think the problem here was that the deletion was so swift. In fact it was only possible to restore not even half the material before the second ultra-swift deletion. And this was after hang on had been put on the first time. Sometimes it is a good idea to let it stand for a week to allow the work to be done, and maybe for one or two other people to notice it as it get links to several other pages. As the vent was a recurrent phenomena - in that the very nature of plagiarism means that those who did so in 2006 were copying people back in the eigthies, it is not so much a single event but a multiple event (parallelling the Multiple-use names with which it associated (e.g. Karen Eliot)Harrypotter 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles that can't stand on their own are subject to deletion at any time... I suggest creating a version that asserts importance and cites a source or two. You can do this in your user space, e.g. at User:Harrypotter/Festival of Plagiarism at your leisure then move it to the article space when it's ready. I can userfy the deleted version if you want to start from. --W.marsh 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Marais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article not a copyright violation - see discussion here Roxithro 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation from scratch. On the one hand (without the text visible in Google cache) I have to trust Garion96's judgement here that the text was still pretty derivative. On the other, the supposed violation source isn't much text at all, and facts cannot be copyrighted. Why this can't be recreated per WP:MOS in two minutes is beyond me. Was there more that was taken from sub-pages of the source site? --Dhartung | Talk 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just emailed Dhartung the text of the article. If anyone else needs it, let me know. DGG (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, the text at the alleged source, is minimal, whereas the deleted article was of some length with material obtained directly from the subject herself, including a bibliography of about 15 books. Unless these are made available for a rewrite (if necessary), then only considerable effort and expense will recover the information. Roxithro 11:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion but allow an article on the subject if it is completely new article and not an rewrite of the current one. This means that the content of the old article should not be made available for use in the re-write. FloNight 12:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually compared the alleged copyright violation article with the supposed source? Because the above sounds like a learned argument without facts.....Roxithro 12:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want facts, the deleted article said: "Her main interests have been the colonial architecture of Swakopmund and the treasures of the surrounding Namib Desert". One of the sources said "her subject matter has been the colonial architecture of Swakopmund and the surrounding Namib Desert." Then the very next sentence was lifted with no words changed from [10]. This is plagiarism... we've had people attempt to slam us in the press before for this, and only quick work (by myself and Garion and many others) thwarted that. So perhaps you need to understand this background, we're not just digging for excuses to delete your article, we have a very good reason here. Plagiarism isn't okay and when a Wikipedia article is full of phrases lifted from random copyrighted websites, we delete that article unless there's a clearly non-copyvio version to revert to (but this article started out with a copy and paste of [11]). --W.marsh 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her .... been the colonial architecture of Swakopmund and the ......surrounding Namib Desert These are the actual words according to User:W.marsh that the two sentences have in common. Swakopmund is famed for its German colonial architecture - everybody writes about it. In Namibia the Namib Desert surrounds everything, so tens of thousands of writers use the phrase surrounding Namib Desert. How those phrases can possibly be copyright, only an excessively zealous editor could understand. As User:Dhartung says above, why the offending passages can't be rewritten by someone like Marsh who is outraged by them, is also beyond me. Roxithro 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's okay to change just a few words (which it isn't) to wipe away plagiarism, the next sentence was a copy and paste with no words changed. --W.marsh 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove what offends the pure of soul and reinstate the article...... it really shouldn't be difficult, especially if the goal here is not grandstanding, but improving and adding to Wikipedia. Roxithro 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is too muddled when every version of the article contains plagiarism. Lots of people create articles and never run into this problem... the difference is that they don't plagiarize. To avoid having articles deleted in the future, don't plagiarize. It's very simple, don't be so stubborn. Your conduct here is becoming suspect, Roxithro, as you are an obvious sockuppet of Paul venter. Sarcasm and vague insults are not needed. --W.marsh 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing muddled about it - simply take the final version and clean it up, if necessary. The only person guilty of insults and prejudice in this discussion, is you Marsh. You level accusations of sockpuppetry, plagiarism and copyright violations with complete abandon. You are quick to delete and display little of the cool judgement that one should expect from editors in your position. Do try to live up to the responsibilities of your duties and try to anticipate the problems caused by your hasty decisions - a little self-restraint would not be a bad idea. Roxithro 07:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, nothing muddled about this. The article creator simply should not have copied & pasted material from a copyrighted source to start the article. Also, W.Marsh did not delete the article, I did. Unless you are talking about this which explains how the original editor thinks how one should write articles. Garion96 (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is muddled here is the attitude to the article - there is a strong sense of crime and punishment; the crime of copyright violation and the punishment which is deletion of the article, and a refusal to make it available for rewriting. One has to ask oneself whether anything positive results from implementing such a policy, if policy it is. The questions that have not been answered adequately, are why an article should be deleted because of its history rather than its final appearance, and secondly why the material deleted should not be made available for a rewrite. Both of these seem to fly in the face of an assumption of good faith and an improved Wikipedia. Roxithro 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can only assume good faith so far. There were some copyright violations in the article. We could remove those, but how would we know if there were any more copy and pastes? You have already indicated that you think such behavior is okay, so we have no way of knowing what is and isn't safe in that article. This is why you need to write in your own words, from square one. Everyone is saying that except you... this isn't a conspiracy, you're just on the wrong side of the argument. It's not the end of the world. --W.marsh 17:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You have already indicated that you think such behavior is okay". I most certainly have not! But making such a statement does indicate even more confused thinking on your part. As I said before, the concept of copyright is poorly defined and understood in both the legal world and amongst the editors of Wikipedia and consensus does not imply being correct. "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." "To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art." -- US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Roxithro 07:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roxithro, thanks for your inquiry. Yes, I reviewed the content of the various versions and also the source. I feel that the best approach to avoid a copyright violation is to completely start over. Once a serious copyright violation is noted, this approach is often needed. FloNight 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own deletion - Yes, the article was siginificantly expanded and altered from the original blatant copyright violation. Nevertheless there were still enough traces of copyvio left to warrant deletion. See also this discussion. Of course being deleted as a copyvio does not prevent recreation from scratch. Garion96 (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]