The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as an unattributed intra-wiki copy by a non-author, and thus a copyright violation, without prejudice towards the original draft itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert (TV Presenter)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page appears to be a copy (without attribution, and therefore a copyright violation) of Draft:Alex Gilbert which has twice been declined at AFC review. David Biddulph (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)A[reply]

Why delete my article? Please keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ SG Gayashan (talk • contribs) 04:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What are you doing? Please don't touch the draft I am working on. You moved this to an article. Just leave it please. Just to add to that. I have always believed that this article is notable after 2 years of improving etc, but I never wanted another editor to simply copy and paste and add the draft up again. Makes me look bad, though I do keep saying.. Look at the sources etc, but yes I gave up on trying to get this anywhere but I am allowed to keep the draft active at Draft:Alex Gilbert for improvements so please don't delete that. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, as per WP:CWW, copying from within wikipedia without attribution is a problem, but not an unfixable problem, so it is a bit strong to say that it is a copyright violation. But if it has been refused at AfC recently, then I can't see that there is a good reason why a page can be allowed - surely it should go back to the AfC process if/when it is improved sufficiently for inclusion. I can't see that we're discussing deleting the draft, are we? JMWt (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some further thoughts: Looking at the draft, I'm not so sure that the subject isn't notable and therefore maybe the conclusions of the most AfC are wrong (which to me suggests a wikipedia process problem which I have no idea how to resolve. How does one judge the conclusions of a an AfC vs a AfD process?). The normal practice of WP:GNG requires us to find WP:RS from independent secondary sources to give notability. This HuffPo report was written by a staff reporter and is fairly extensive. Also this SBS report, this Northern Advocate report, this Mirror report and so on. This all seems to me to enough give notability. JMWt (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.