Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

14 (copied from the web)[edit]

"Articles consisting entirely of material copied from an existing web page, if such text is an advertisement, or unverifiable." should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • This is not just about copyright, although it also catches such violations.
  • This proposal does not specify copies from other sources (such as books) because such are harder to check, and because it happens more often that someone copy/pastes content from a webpage, than that someone types in pages from a book.
  • See also User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, an essay on the New Pages patrol.
  • The clause on verifiability rules out, among others, deleting pages copied from the online public domain Encyclopedia Britannica.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

Votes[edit]

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

Support[edit]

  1. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:57 (UTC)
  2. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
  3. JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)
  4. This usefully singles out a particular aspect of the {{copyvio}} process for speedying - it has to be an advert or unverifiable. Copied text comprising some commentary on something (e.g. a news article, or a review of a company by a consumer group) lifted from a website would likely survive this, but not survive {{copyvio}}.-Splash 5 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
  5. SimonP July 5, 2005 16:04 (UTC)
  6. (Although Uncle G's proposal to blank the page addresses part of my concern. Also, Cryptic made an interesting point about mirrors keeping deleted articles, but we shouldn't try to correct other websites' mistakes.) — Sebastian (talk) July 6, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  7. It's not clear to me that any article containing nothing apart from copied material should stay (what added value is there?), but this would at least weed out the more obviously pointless examples. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
  8. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
  9. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
  10. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
  11. Support - This could be rewritten better but if it is a complete copy then I don't see how it can be a reasonable article. This does not mean it cannot contain the complete text from a website. Just not without supporting text. - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
  12. Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:34 (UTC)
  13. Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
  14. Support, though this vote is in vain. TheCoffee 21:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. This would free up a lot of time getting rid of stunningly obvious copyvios. Those people who think the current burdensome, time-consuming process is adequate should spend some time chipping in over there. Gamaliel 17:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. See this a lot, these are fairly often appearing in Special:newpages although they are often regarding topics that should be covered, it would be nice for these obvious copyvios not to clutter up vfd or copyright-problems. --Mysidia 13:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Dsmdgold 15:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support as per Gamaliel above. Pavel Vozenilek 19:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Noel (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. "advertisment" and "unverifiable" are far too vague to be determined by one person. Kappa 4 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
  2. For once I'm going to agree with Kappa. Too vague and too subjective. Hermione1980 4 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
  3. I also agree with Kappa here.DES 4 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
  4. I agree. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:55 (UTC)
  5. If it's a copy of a company's copyrighted advertising, mission statement, or corporate blurb, one need simply apply Copyright Judo. There's no need for a new speedy deletion criterion when the Wikipedia:Copyright problems procedure already allows us to immediately blank copyrighted advertisements (as most advertisements are) that are not licenced under a GFDL-compatible licence. It was stated in the discussion of this proposal before the vote that the "slowness" of the process was frustrating. But I see nothing slow about the immediate blanking of the article in question. There's no problem here to be solved by having this speedy deletion criterion. Uncle G 4 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
  6. Let the copyright problems process do its job. humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - let the WP:CP staff do their job. Then we can see about getting those articles recreated with legitimate content. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: Text copied from a website is almost invariably a pathetic excuse for an article, but it does not warrant speedy deletion for that reason alone. If the use of such text is compatible with GFDL, it ought to be used as the basis for a better article. If not, the page ought to be tagged and brought to the attention of Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
  9. This may be the one time I agree with Kappa. Too much grey here. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 02:52 (UTC)
  10. Reword this and you have my strongest support. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
    • How? Did you write this somewhere? — Sebastian (talk) July 6, 2005 03:18 (UTC)
  11. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)
  12. Too subjective, and I prefer the existing CP mechanisms anyway. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
  13. It's preferable to delete copyvios slowly, since one of our goals is ease of reuse. Hardly any of our mirrors delete articles that no longer exist on Wikipedia; they keep the last version. Better that that should be "{{copyvio|some website here}}" instead of the article text. If the "article" was an advertisement, all the more reason for it not to be mirrored in full. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:40 (UTC)
  14. Copyvio should be used to handle copyvios, obviously, and I don't see anything else this proposal adds Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
  15. tricky proposal JoJan 5 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. It sounds good, but it's redundant - text that's copied from a webpage is most likely a copyright violation, anyway, and if it's not, then adverts and unverifiable stuff can still be handled the usual way. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:35 (UTC)
  18. This is VfD territory. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
  19. Redundant — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
  20. VFD, not CSD - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Vague re-implementation of part of the copyvio process, which works well as it is. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:20 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Unless the copyvio process is as bloated as the VfD process, I don't see why we need to change things that fall into its domain. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
  23. oppose. Copyvios are for this purpose...
  24. Oppose. Uncle G and Kappa have summed up my opinions well enough. Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Once the copyvio/unverifiable info is removed, the remaining article (blank in this case) can be assessed with respect to the existing rules Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  26. Oppose: criterion is too vague and WP:CP works fine Sietse 6 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)
  27. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)
  28. Oppose, with is what CP is for. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
  29. Oppose, unnecessary proposal. This is already covered under WP:CP. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
  30. All has to be verified. Too much for CSD. Also, the copyvio in place now is satisfactory. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Arbitrary, bizarre, and unnecessary. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
  32. If it doesn't meet copyvio standards, then it needs VfD. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
  33. Oppose per Kappa. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:39 (UTC)
  34. Weak oppose. If the poor tortured souls who have to deal with WP:CP aren't asking us to reduce their workload then there is no need to dilute the idea of speedy deletion. This proposals seems as if it will increase the total woakload of admins (by introducing a web check and subjective decision at the CSD stage, followed by a possible copyvio check later).
    Sorry, I forgot to sign this vote: it is mine. Physchim62 8 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
  35. oppose could easily apply to copies of Public Domain inclusions from, e.g., the National Park Service depending on how you defined "ad". -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Poorly-worded proposal. Potential would support a CSD on clear copyvios if a suitable wording could be found. Stuff on advertising is out-of-place. Pcb21| Pete 7 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. People often write a good article for their own websites, then discover Wikipedia and place it on there. This is absolutely fine with me. David | Talk 7 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. Poorly worded. Does this only apply to copied webpages that also happen to be advertising or unverifiable, or to any copied webpages? Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
  39. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:27 (UTC)
  40. Oppose - copyvio process already in place; articles can be subsequently rewritten if needs be. Proto t c 8 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
  41. Per Proto. 24 at 9 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Poorly worded, the existing proccess for copyvios seems fine to me. --Canderson7 18:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  43. Oppose. --Allen3 talk 21:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. That it isn't the copyrightholder submitting it (or that it isn't free/LGPL content) should be checked before we do drastic things with it. Shanes 06:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per NatusRoma. This criterion doesn't mention GFDL compatible websites or the person who submitted it. Too vague. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  47. Oppose. JuntungWu 14:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Wording too vague. Feydey 23:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Unverifiable is a stretchword. --Sweets 00:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Source / medium is not a factor. David Remahl 03:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose, per Uncle G. IanManka 06:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose per Kappa. DS1953 06:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. I have a feeling that this may cause too many problems. Vegaswikian 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Opppose. I feel that Copyvio is sufficient, and enables the page to be fixed (/temp)or verfied during that time. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. There is nothing wrong with copying quality PD resources. Copyvios can be dealt with as they always have. We DON'T speedy articles because they're unverifiable. They may still have valid information. Also, there is no guarantee that everything in the PD EB is verifiable. Some of it we now know to be wrong, in fact. That means something isn't verified just by being in it. Keep that in mind. Superm401 | Talk 13:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  56. Oppose per above. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/14&oldid=1138427982"