 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Deleted?
Can we get a link to the AfD for this article? I didn't know we were in the business of completely deleting articles about accredited academic institutions. A dubious claim of "copyright violation" was used to delete the article. I'd like to see some proof of said violation, and an explanation as to why the entire article was deleted instead of removing the offending material. Justinm1978 ( talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The link to the copyvio is provided in the deletion log. The most of the history was filled with this copyvio (over 2 years) and it was better, in my judgment, to start a brand new article from scratch with no copyvio in the history.
User:Zscout370
(Return Fire) 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion log entry can be found
here. Copyvio according to delete log was with
http://www.parkland.edu/about/quickfacts.aspx .
- Your judgement is flawed; it would have been better to just delete the copyvio parts (and the claim of copyvio is fairly suspect) and leave the shell of the article. Moves like this make Wiki more work that it is worth sometimes.
Justinm1978 (
talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- It certainly was a copyvio. Take a look at the facebook pagethat was gotten from the previous Wikipedia page and compare it to the quickfacts page on Parkland's website. Of the two paragraphs that show on up the facebook page, *one* sentence is not a copyvio (the one about "community colleges can"). The only question to me is whether in salvaging the infobox, it is worth keeping accessible the copyvio in the history or not.
- Your judgement is flawed; it would have been better to just delete the copyvio parts (and the claim of copyvio is fairly suspect) and leave the shell of the article. Moves like this make Wiki more work that it is worth sometimes.
Justinm1978 (
talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion log entry can be found
here. Copyvio according to delete log was with
http://www.parkland.edu/about/quickfacts.aspx .
- There is nothing "dubious" about the copyright infringement: it was totally unambiguous. What is more, different pieces of copyright-infringing text came and went at different stages in the history of the article, going back at least as far as January 2006. To have selectively removed the copyright infringing material from the article's history would have been impossible. It would have been possible to have deleted the article and then restored just the initial stub, but that was so minimal that it's not clear that there would have been any point in doing so.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 15:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- You summed up my thoughts exactly. Well, Facebook does copy Wikipedia's content, so that site did not factor into my decision. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Deleted?
Can we get a link to the AfD for this article? I didn't know we were in the business of completely deleting articles about accredited academic institutions. A dubious claim of "copyright violation" was used to delete the article. I'd like to see some proof of said violation, and an explanation as to why the entire article was deleted instead of removing the offending material. Justinm1978 ( talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The link to the copyvio is provided in the deletion log. The most of the history was filled with this copyvio (over 2 years) and it was better, in my judgment, to start a brand new article from scratch with no copyvio in the history.
User:Zscout370
(Return Fire) 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion log entry can be found
here. Copyvio according to delete log was with
http://www.parkland.edu/about/quickfacts.aspx .
- Your judgement is flawed; it would have been better to just delete the copyvio parts (and the claim of copyvio is fairly suspect) and leave the shell of the article. Moves like this make Wiki more work that it is worth sometimes.
Justinm1978 (
talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- It certainly was a copyvio. Take a look at the facebook pagethat was gotten from the previous Wikipedia page and compare it to the quickfacts page on Parkland's website. Of the two paragraphs that show on up the facebook page, *one* sentence is not a copyvio (the one about "community colleges can"). The only question to me is whether in salvaging the infobox, it is worth keeping accessible the copyvio in the history or not.
- Your judgement is flawed; it would have been better to just delete the copyvio parts (and the claim of copyvio is fairly suspect) and leave the shell of the article. Moves like this make Wiki more work that it is worth sometimes.
Justinm1978 (
talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion log entry can be found
here. Copyvio according to delete log was with
http://www.parkland.edu/about/quickfacts.aspx .
- There is nothing "dubious" about the copyright infringement: it was totally unambiguous. What is more, different pieces of copyright-infringing text came and went at different stages in the history of the article, going back at least as far as January 2006. To have selectively removed the copyright infringing material from the article's history would have been impossible. It would have been possible to have deleted the article and then restored just the initial stub, but that was so minimal that it's not clear that there would have been any point in doing so.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 15:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- You summed up my thoughts exactly. Well, Facebook does copy Wikipedia's content, so that site did not factor into my decision. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)