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

The result of the discussion was: delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir[edit]

Promotional, reads like a flier, and totally unsourced. I tried for G11 but got declined. PrussianOwl (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom has, respectfully, provided no rationale for deletion. I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but not having citations or failing notability is not a reason for deletion in Draft: namespace. The author may well be intending to add reliable, independent sources to back both verify the claims asserted and establish its notability. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so as long as the author (or author(s), I should potentially add), can show they're working on it, that's all that matters, assuming it's not a soapboxing blog post, a professional CV, and the like. I see no reason for deletion here. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it's so promotional, it'sike they copied off the website. It reads like a flier. PrussianOwl (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a word-for-word cut-and-paste, why didn't you tag it with ((copyvio)) and your rationale? It'd get quicker response from an administrator, who can remove the copyrighted text and warn the user appropriately. In fact, copyright violations aside, that's not a reason for deletion. At most, we should be removing the copyrighted text, stripping it down to a bare shell with an infobox, warning the user (level 1 or 2, to not be overly BITEy), and hiding the revisions. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found evidence of copyvio and tagged the page accordingly. PrussianOwl (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe Interesting. Definitely worth keeping in Draft: namespace, and I do note that the creator even voluntarily disclosed their COI/affiliation with the choir without being asked. So, potentially, they may be in an authoritative position to license the copyright-protected verbiage under terms equivalent to CC-BY-SA to WMF. But you're saying, from your searches, this may even be notable to pass WP:GNG? --Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as a copyvio. the article is copied verbatim from choir web site. A new draft without copyright violations can then be b started here, -- Whpq (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq I, respectfully, disagree wholeheartedly. That's far too BITEy, to me, and we should be considering alternatives to deletion, which include revision deleting the copyright violating content. But, crucially, the creator of the content has a voluntarily declared connection to the article, so he or she may be in a position to license said content to WMF—which would mean the revisions may not even need to be deleted. Once licensed, or hidden, as applicable, neutral editors could then rewrite the prose in a neutral tone and perspective. But calling for WP:TNT just because of a copyright violations is a back-door way for another editor to count article creation credit to their name. I've seen it happen several times in the past few months, and it kind of annoys me, frankly. :(

As to speedy delete, two admins and one editor, or two editors and one admin, have either declined or contested G11 and G12 tags. It's, thus, not eligible for speedy deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 23:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I specified that the speedy deletion in my !vote was specifically for copyvio so declined/contested G11 is irrelevant. As for G12, there has been no admin decline of that. You removed it. We may get permission, but there was never any asserted permission, and I disagree that it is bite-y to delete copyright violations. As for your assertion that " calling for WP:TNT just because of a copyright violations is a back-door way for another editor to count article creation credit to their name", if you have evidence that I or User:PrussianOwl are attempting such a stunt, then please present it otherwise I request you remove such obnoxious innuendo. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq I made no such allegation that either of you were attempting such. I'm just suggesting that may be the inclination of others, from time to time, based on past observations. In no way did I mean to suggest that. Nevertheless, PrussianOwl and I have collegially discussed things on the talk page of this draft, and we both agree that revision deleting the copyright violations is the most friendly way to go given the creator's abundance of demonstrated good-faith here and the likelihood that notability may well even be possible. Doug Mehus T·C 00:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq Further, yes I did remove the G12 speedy deletion tag, but note that Espresso Addict, who declined the G11, 'thanked' me for my reply above to you, which suggests a degree of support that G12, even if, potentially, technically possible, is not the way to go in this case. Nevertheless, I do apologize completely and unreservedly if my above comment was incorrectly misconstrued as applying to you or to PrussianOwl. It was not, I assure you. The thought never even crossed my mind. Doug Mehus T·C 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having looked into this I find there is nothing here worth saving. The article is both promotional and a copyright violation, with no significant history other than the one edit to create it by an editor with a declared COI who has made only two other edits to Wikipedia, both in regards to this article: [1], and has not edited for five months. There is a possibility that the topic may be notable - I have found a few sources, though they are more in the manner of press releases than anything substantial: [2], [3]. This source contains praise from several notable newspapers: [4], however, on checking those quotes to the sources mentioned, I couldn't mind evidence to confirm the sources had said those things about this particular choir (example: “A superbly drilled, precise, yet warm-voiced instrument, this choir has the knack of breathing meaning and vitality into everything they sing” Sydney Morning Herald Their Website. Search result on the website: [5]) My suggestion to User:Dmehus, if they wish to write something on this choir, is to do some research to gather the sources needed to establish notability - being cautious with regard to using information from the choir's own website, as it is unclear who is responsible for those newspaper quotes (they may, for example, be comments posted by the general public on the website, and may be well meaning comments posted by enthusiastic supporters of the choir in the same vein as this), and if satisfied that an article on the choir would meet our notability criteria, then write up the article either in draft form or, if confident enough, then directly onto mainspace. SilkTork (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork But notability doesn't apply to Draft: namespace. My concern is that the creator of the article, in good-faith, declared their affiliation to this choir, so they should be given article creation credit, with the understanding that they are not to edit the article directly if and when it is moved to the Main: namespace (should it ever be moved to the Main: namespace before being G13'ed). Moreover, my understanding is we have to consider every available alternative to deletion, which include suppressing the prior revisions of the offending content if the choir and/or creator do not get in touch with us to license the offending content (as seems likely). If the creator or anyone doesn't edit the draft article, this can be G13'ed, but with suppressing the revisions and removing the offending content, what's the rush to delete? Doug Mehus T·C 16:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush to delete, but there's nothing to save. It's just a question of being practical here, and several editors have already spent considerably more time on this article than the original editor did in creating it on Wikipedia. Given that there is nothing here to save, now that someone has proposed this for deletion I suggest we go along with that rather than wasting more time attempting to save something not worth saving, and put our time and effort into creating meaningful content instead. The best way we can serve this choir and the enthusiastic supporter of the choir who wishes Wikipedia to have an article on the choir, is to do something practical and positive, such as doing the research to establish notability and write up an appropriate article. Attempts to save this draft and convert the text into something acceptable are going to be considerably more frustrating and time-consuming than starting from scratch. Been there and tried that. Trust me. Much better to start from scratch. And much better, first, to find out before doing any more work if the choir are likely to meet our inclusion criteria. I suspect not, given that I found nothing other than promotional material in my search, but the choir has a long history, and there may well be some decent resources locally. Perhaps get in touch with the local library in Tylorstown - if anyone is going to have resources on the choir, then they will. I did do a search of the library catalogue, and found nothing: [6], but you are welcome to try yourself. Their address is : Tylorstown Library Edmund Street, Tylorstown, CF43 3HH United Kingdom, and phone: (+44) (0) 14437-30298. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SilkTork. It's a copyvio, with no non-copyvio content worth saving. It should have been G12'd, but we're here now, so I'll just vote delete. If someone wants to write a non-copyvio version, they're free to do that after the page is deleted. That doesn't have to be worked out at MFD; no one is arguing that the page should be salted. This discussion is getting needlessly convoluted. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried for a G12 but it got declined. PrussianOwl (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.