User:Jnazaroff (edit | [[Talk:User:Jnazaroff|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

ALthough this page is a bit of an advertisement in its initial draft, the intent is to have an article detailing a NEUTRAL opinion about an African-American owned company which has made considerable contributions to the city of Detroit and to the automotive industry. Futhermore, there are several articles on Wikipedia with nearly the exact same content, featuring other companies in the same industry, which appear to have no merit other than simply being a company in the United States. Examples include Kelly Service and Aerotek, for starters. The purpose of this article was to speak more about the community involvement and philanthropic efforts of the companies owner, Jon Barfield. There was barely two paragraphs covering any information that could be deemed as an advertisement of the company; the rest was 100% factual information which will be cited. Finally, the page has only been up for one day and this is my first attempt at creating a Wikipedia page. I had not moved it out of my user page yet, because I know that it needed to be refined and worked on before doing so. There were already two sources cited, and I have a dozen more to enter for the article. I would appreciate the article being returned to my user page so that I can AT LEAST cut and paste it into a word processor and continue editing it. Thank you. Jnazaroff 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. A userpage is not to be used as advertising or promotion as a pseudo-article. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site.--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy-deletion but... Many people try to use their userpage to create content that would be deleted if it were in the main article space. That's a bad thing. On the other hand, we encourage people to use their userspace to create drafts of content that might later be moved into the articlespace. In this case, I'm going to assume good faith on the part of the requestor that this was a legitimate attempt to draft an article. My opinion, however, is conditional. Please read Wikipedia's generally accepted standards for inclusion of articles about organizations to be sure that coverage of this company is appropriate for the encyclopedia. I would also ask that you closely read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. If, as I suspect from your writings, you have a stake in the company or people, you would be strongly advised to let someone else create the page. If the company is truly notable, someone will sooner or later. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with reservations. Yes, the tone of the article was terribly promotional, but in all fairness the author did seem to be actively engaged in working on it. It is far better to have a poorly-written start in userspace with the intention of cleaning it up before moving in to mainspace, and I too am willing to assume good faith on the editor's part that s/he intended to continue improving it to inclusion standards before moving it into namespace. Give them a shot. Shereth 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore as User:Jnazaroff/The Bartech Group (that is, not as the requester's main userpage, but as a subpage). I am taking Jnazaroff at their word that they will rewrite the article in a neutral style and add more sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Beer Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I noticed that this listing was removed. It is a real live holiday celebrated by thousands of students at Miami University students in Oxford, Ohio every year. Could you undelete the listing? The article held valuable content relating to a tradition that has been around for over 50 years and is covered annually by news media in the Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio region as well as by the AP, and is part of the rich tradition of Miami University's students as a form of protest. See http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/12/loc_greenbeer12.html

• I've notified the deleting admin who seems to be going on wikibreak. It was tagged as spam, but that doesn't really fit and the article has been deleted as copyvio, but that seems to be mistaken since the quoted site [1] explicitly attributes wikipedia itself. So restore. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy-deletion. I concur that this was not a copyright violation. List to AfD because the topic does not seem to meet any of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. The sources above and alleged in the deleted content are more like human-interest stories run on a slow news day than the kind of substantive and reliable sources needed to support a proper encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD, the speedy deletion was a mistake, not a copyvio. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Overturned. Send it to AFD if you need to, as I'm not seeing major notability established. seicer | talk | contribs 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison_of_one-click_hosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please have a look at the Afd link above for the discussion before. Nevertheless this page has been deleted again.

There is a small list now included in this article https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File_hosting_service , but it is very incomplete and obviously a list is better suited on a separate page.

If wikipedia admins decide that it is not desirable to put this page back up, can you at least email me the contents of this article, then i can put it up on another wiki, because lots of people are looking for it. Hundreds of thousands of people use one-click hosting every day, so an extensive list of the available services with their details compared in one table is a must to have somewhere online where everybody can update it regularly.

Thanx in advance, my emailadres is najamelan -> gmail -> com

Please not that the deletor has not been notified on their talk page, because i cannot find an edit button on their page. It is semi protected. Maybe that's why i cant post there...

ps: im not the original creator of the page, but one of its users that already misses it alot. Hostingcomparison (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)— Hostingcomparison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - I've notified the deleting admin.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion it looks ok to me. I'm also unconvinced that someone who uses it a lot has made their first edit here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Comparison of one-click hosting services exists, however it is a double redirect which needs to be fixed to direct to File hosting service, where the "encyclopedic content" is. If this "one edit" account looks through the history of the redirect the spam linkfam still exists (which he/she is claiming to use "alot"). Wikipedia is not webspace provider, nor is it a repository of links.This DRV is Moot.--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanx for the link to the content Hu12, i will put it somewhere else. I don't care where it is as long as it's not gone.Hostingcomparison (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore as redirect from merge for our own GFDL. - Edit history tells me that Comparison_of_one-click_hosters was immediately spun off from Comparison of one-click hosting services and went through a few hundred edits after its successful AfD. The content was then first pruned to notable entries that have a wiki entry, then merged to One-click hosting and then merged once more File hosting service. After some back and forth between the full article and the remaining redirect, it was deleted as housekeeping. I don't see how that can apply here. Even an Rfd might have concluded that we keep the full edit history in such cases.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy-deletion and restore the history. Pages which have been through an XfD discussion are ineligible for speedy-deletion. Arguing that this was a G6 (housekeeping) speedy is a gross abuse of the intent of that clause. Redirects and preservation of pagehistory are important to the project. "Housekeeping" speedies are intended for temporary deletions in order to make way for pagemoves, etc. That clause was not created in order to allow the deletion of content. Rossami (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Clear violation of WP:Deletion policy. The view of an individual administrator, or even two or three of them, does not trump the community. We interpret the consensus, we don;'t defy it. If someone wants to bring another AfD in 6 months or so, they are certainly welcome to do so, to see if the consensus has changed. There are usually 3 or 4 articles kept at AfD each day that I think should be clearly deleted--you dont see me going around speedying them, though I certainly speedy delete a good deal else when they fit the specifications. DGG (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A two year old AFD for an article which years later has been merged into other articles leaving only a duplicate and depricated redirect certainly isn't against the deletion policy. is it? I don't see any Redirects for deletion debates (RfD) to precident this as non-speediable.--Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It absolutely is for two independent reasons. First - merges took place. So we can't delete the history at all. Second - a prior AFD occurred so the only speedy deletions that would still be viable are the copyright violation and pure attack page in all version deletion conditions. GRBerry 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's a discussion here about sightly modifying G6, to avoid things like this. The result of that discussion could influence this, and users commenting here may want to also comment there. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Merges, prior AFD. GRBerry 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion A RfD would have closed as a Keep to preserve history and abide to GFDL. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored for its history. Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Laughter at GFDL issues, bare facts are not copyrightable, this is a simple list with no creative element. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lupus et Agnus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello friends. I'm not familiar with all of the guidelines of Wikipedia, but I noticed a message on my user page related to the template Template:Lupus et Agnus. This is a fable written by Phaedrus who lived between 15 BC and AD 50. In response to the message I received: I did not copy and paste this from another Wikimedia project. Nor was this "transwikied out to another project" (to my knowledge). I'm not sure why this would be a copyright issue. My main objective was to show the source of the Gallo-siculo translations of this fable. I didn't know a fable of ancient "common knowledge" belonged to any one person or project. I'm not quite sure if I understand the problem at hand. Please advise me of how I may be able to continue to show the source of these fables. This is merely for comparative linguistic purposes only. The Latin original is an integral part of my work in showing the development of Gallo-Sicilian from Latin. Thank you for your time. Cheers! Zulux1 (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a copyright violation or anything, but all the content was in Latin. This is the English Wikipedia, you'll find the Latin Wikipedia three doors down and hang a left. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues here, some of them go beyond this DRV.

1. You seem to have had a template in mind, but created it in article space.
2. That article has been compared with the one of the Latin wikipedia and essentially found identical, as it also basically contains the same original text. This isn't surprising since there is indeed only one common ancient source but it is already inside: the deletion reason essentially amounts to it being a duplicate inside the wikimedia family.
3. The right place for such source text isn't even the Latin wikipedia, but the Latin wikisource, where it is indeed kept at [2], so you can now link directly there, eg. via {{ws}} or the like.
4. You have now started to work on Sicilian language templates for the same same story, that seem to have been copied form some website. So thy are probably copyrighted. In any case, this wikipedia isn't the right place for them. I'm afraid the new templates need either to be speedily deleted as copyright violation or be put up for deletion at WP:TfD as more appropriate for some thing like the Sicilian wikisource. Or if you follow this reasoning, you can mark them yourself with {{db-author}}.
5. Besides, you have to make sure that 'your work' here isn't original research

So it is endorse for this deletion.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion What you need to do is add some substantial sourced commentary and background about the fable. I gather you are doing original research on it? You cant use that, at least until its been formally published,but you can certainly discuss what information is available in other sources. Since the text is very short and very much out of copyright, it would not be inappropriate to include it in a more substantial article. If you do this, just rewrite the article. DGG (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about each single translation of original public domain text not really being a copyright violation. I was looking more at the whole website split up into templates and then reappearing together in the article Gallo-siculo. They would at least need to be attributed on the level of template / language and translator (as in the website), but there are other reasons not do to this in template form. What occupies me now more is that Zulux1 has not only removed them but also seems to taken this deletion and its review as reason to leave[3] which I would really regret as all my additional remarks above were mostly intended to clarify the role of the templates and sources --Tikiwont (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather then you are supporting recreation without the template formatting? DGG (talk)`

Well, let's say with respect to a direct usage of the quotes I would still have editorial concerns, but that is a different level than opposing the templates. If someone writes an article about the Phaedrus fable itself, that would probably contain the full English text and maybe also the Latin one. There may also be other places such as the Gallo-siculo language article where the text can appear, but that doesn't mean that the deleted Latin article should be recreated or that it would somehow be necessary as the source is already available in wikisource. With respect to the Sicilian ones, one of them now at TfD, the website where they are from, informs that they are intended to give an idea about the various dialects, to be taken 'with some indulgence and without claim of scientific rigor'.[4] In requesting and compiling these translations into rare dialects i saw initially the 'creative' element to be considered. On the other hand they still lack a systematic analysis that would actually make them useful or for the English reader which brings us back to the OR problem. But this is really beyond this DRV and I don't want to appear or feel like the wolf hovering upstream and inventing ever new pretexts...--Tikiwont (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. As I understand it, Zulux1 is trying to use this fable to show how various Sicilian dialects compare to each other and to Latin from which they derive. If so, this comparison would belong in an article about the dialects rather than in a separate article named after the fable. Furthermore, the fable would only need to be made into a template if it were going to be used in multiple different articles, but it's not clear whether that is planned to be done. As indicated above, the original text is still available at the Latin Wikisource. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I am the owner of the company. The information that I put on the wikipedia page came from my website that I also wrote. Therefore, it is not plagarism because I wrote it all myself. 68.193.10.19 (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Then it's probably blatant advertising... presumably you put the information on your website to promote your company, and if that's the purpose of the content, it runs afoul of Wikipedia policy, most directly, the no blatant advertising rule. --Rividian (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Run-of-the-mill real-estate firm: see WP:NN. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion even if you are the copyright owner (something which you would have to prove) the article read like a promotion piece and could have been speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your company. Read Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. Hut 8.5 08:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, right result if not the exact reason. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion & I think I'll just leave it at that ... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Having read the article, I agree with much of the above. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]