Another editor has added the "((prod))" template to the article The Great Banquet, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the ((prod)) template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated The Great Banquet, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Banquet and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Great Banquet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your message. I appreciate your recognition that admins have 100's (nay probably 1000's) of articles to review and other such tasks. I will add however that I personally do not trust regular contributors any more than I trust newbies - insofar that I check as thoroughly as I can the actual request for speedy deletion. In this case your article consisted almost completely of the following information:

• To become familiar with the Great Banquet, look first at the history of its counterparts, the Cursillo and the Walk to Emmaus. The Cursillo (3-day course in Christianity) began in Spain in the 1940s in the Roman Catholic Church. It spread to the United States and evolved for Protestants into the Walk to Emmaus under the auspices of the Upper Room and the United Methodist Church. An Emmaus Movement was started by the First Presbyterian Church in Madisonville, Kentucky in 1982. After a 10-year history of the Walk to Emmaus in Madisonville, Rev. John E. Pitzer and lay people from First Presbyterian Church formed the Great Banquet. The Great Banquet is governed by an ecumenical board of directors, using the "Cursillo model", but with a different image, the parable of The Great Banquet, from the Gospel of Luke. The Great Banquet Movement is institutionally sponsored by local church groups in a growing number of American communities. Lampstand Ministries [1] was formed as a covering corporation to move the Great Banquet Movement to other areas.

The Great Banquet is a 72-hour experience based on the Cursillo method. The cursillo method focuses on training lay people to become effective leaders over the course of a three-day weekend. The weekend includes fifteen talks, some given by clergy and some by lay people. One emphasis of the weekend is on preparing those undergoing it to take the movement's methods back into the world, on what they call the "fourth day". To assist alumni in after the weekend, the Great Banquet community offers specific opportunities. First, "fourth day" "reunion groups" may be established to examine their goal of spiritual growth and encouragement. Second, alumni may assist in future Great Banquet weekends. Third, guests are made aware of community needs via communications with other Great Banquet communities, locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.

• The page that was stated as the copyvio link at [2] stated:

The Great Banquet is a 72-hour experience, beginning on Thursday evening and ending Sunday evening. For three days, guests live and study together in a worshipful time of singing, prayer and discussion. During each of the fifteen talks given by laity and clergy, the theme of God's grace is presented. Guests participate in the daily celebration of Holy Communion and examine more fully the presence of Christ in His body of believers. They personally experience His grace through the prayers and acts of a loving, Christian support community.

To become familiar with the Great Banquet, let's look first at the history of its counterparts, the Cursillo and the Walk to Emmaus. The Cursillo (3-day course in Christianity) began in Spain in the 1940s in the Catholic Church. It spread to the United States and evolved for Protestants into the Walk to Emmaus under the auspices of the Upper Room and the United Methodist Church. An Emmaus Movement was started by the First Presbyterian Church in Madisonville, Kentucky in 1982. After a 10-year history of the Walk to Emmaus in Madisonville, Rev. John E. Pitzer and lay people from First Presbyterian Church formed the Great Banquet. Governed by an ecumenical board of directors and using the "Cursillo model", but with a different image, the Great Banquet continues to emphasize personal Christian discipleship. The Great Banquet Movement is institutionally sponsored by local church groups in these areas. Lampstand Ministries was formed as a covering corporation to move the Great Banquet Movement to other areas.

• As I hope you will see I did do my research and, well I'm sorry but in a nutshell your content is a copyright violation. Best wishes --VS ^talk 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might just quickly add that your content was not in fact a paraphrase - it was in the majority a word for word copy and actually fits more closely into the definition of plagiarism. Cheers. --VS ^talk 03:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that wherever you happen to find the text first, is the owner, even if they are not the originator? The website cited as holding the copyright to the text [3] is NOT the originator or owner of the text. If we want to use the simple fact that the text is located on a copyrighted website, then I can point you to the website for my community. The text on our site was copied from Lampstand's site just like Logansport's was. Our site has a copyright at the bottom of the page too. So using the same faulty logic, we are, in fact, the copyright holder of the descriptive text (I did copy the text from our website initially). Additionally, Lampstand posted on the discussion page that they will allow the use of any of their text for the Wikipedia article. Do you refute that the text is theirs just because you found a copy of it on Logansport's site first? Logansport is NOT the owner of the text. How can Lampstand claim their true ownership, then release it for use in a Wikipedia article? Is the only way that description can be used, is to have Lampstand post the article themselves, and claim the text with the "I am the owner..." statement? Or will they be copyvio'ed for using their own text, just because Logansport (and several others) have reused their text, on copyrighted websites? Here are a few links to pages (some "copyrighted") that have the same text: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], et.al. You are right, some of the text is, by definition, plagiarized; all these sites have plagiarized the text, with permission, from Lampstand. I really do appreciate that you are trying to defend and protect intellectual copyright - that is important, commendable, ethical, and legal. But the method used (first place you happen to find it) to "protect" it, in this case, is very flawed. Rmsphoto (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I can accept the latter part of your argument. But that will mean that you point me quickly and easily to the original site that has the exact content you had put up (which you agree is plagiarized at this time from the page I was referred to in the first place) and (a) prove to me that it was written and posted by that site first, and (b) that it is not copyrighted - so that it can be put up on wikipedia. If you do that and return to my talk page with that prove I will restore the article and place a note on its talk page and as a a part of its restoration edit summary.--VS ^talk 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, VS, for continuing the thread. Well, those are quite some hoops to jump through... I cannot offer documented proof of law. One cannot create a historical log of the web server time-stamps and archives from the past many years to prove such a thing. But it is certainly implicit that the originator of the movement precedes the locales to which the movement spread. The discussion page for the original article (which I can no longer access) contains a statement from Lampstand Ministries giving permission to use the text from their site. I contacted Lampstand directly, asked them to register with Wikipedia, asked that they check the article for accuracy and acceptability, and provide permission to use text from their copyrighted website if they felt it appropriate; they did so on Friday afternoon - USA East time. I'm sure they would be happy to place the "I am the owner..." statement on the article if it becomes reposted - I would definitely contact them again to do so... Quick and easy original site link: http://lampstand.net/about_great_banquet.html Again, I do commend you for going to bat for intellectual property owners; I know that is a thankless job. I owned a photo lab for several years, and constantly explained (and sometimes argued) why it is not OK to copy your kids' school photos, or your best friend's wedding photos, etc. Rmsphoto (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay I am happy to keep talking here - but I don't watch back on all my edits so you might have to prompt me whenever you write to me. The problem (I'm sure you would have guessed it to be) if Lampstand gives permission on Wiki in the form of a statement is that we can't tell easily if it really is Lampstand speaking. Linked to this problem is the fact that the link you gave me above to the page about great banquet states clearly in the bottom left (c)2007 Lampstand Ministries. All Rights Reserved., finally we may also need to get away from pure or almost pure plagiarism and paraphrasing. Indeed it is this third option that is probably your best shot, because a truly paraphrased article written in encyclopaedic tones and terms - rather than as a sermon - will probably be accepted (if you can prove notability and verify any claims). Towards that end - I am willing to help by pasting the content on to a sandbox page that you create titled user:Rmsphoto/Sandbox - providing within 2 or 3 days the previous content has altered completely so that it is not just a substantial cut and paste from other material. Then if it looks okay we can ask another editor or two to give their views before cutting and pasting your sandbox article to a new page on the mainspace. Let me know on my talk page if you are willing to try this method. --VS ^talk 11:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left on talk page of the sandbox article.--VS ^talk 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]