Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick William Sanderson

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 speedy deleted as copyvio; replaced with clean rewrite from Uncle G. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick William Sanderson

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

Plagiarized text from 'The Joy of Living Dangerously', an essay in 'A Devil's Chaplain' by Richard Dawkins. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is indeed as Jimbo says a grossly plagiarized text, in places merely closely paraphrased, but much a word-for-word copy of Dawkins. We have the choice of deleting the article or of removing the plagiarized "Biography" and "How Sanderson worked with the boys of Oundle" sections to leave a stub (lead-in, after Sanderson's death, references) of this great schoolmaster. Most likely (much of) the history will have to be removed: the plagiarism dates from the first version of the article (11 Sept 2006). The citations establish notability beyond doubt and will enable a reworked article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW, leaving a stub. I'm dealing with the copyvios per guidance at WP:CSD#G12. To aid further discussions, here's the nominated version. -- Trevj (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate~~Keep~~ ~~per Trevj,~~ via CSD of copyvio sections to leave notable stub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as "speedy deletion of sections". Speedy deletion is deletion, with the deletion tool. It isn't done with the edit tool. Read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion all of the way through, from the top. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that Trevj's grasp of copyright policy and deletion policy is highly flawed. The copyright infringement here goes back to the very first revision (I've checked it independently: which now makes at least four of us, including Jimbo and the people who pointed this out on the talk page in 2007.) and remains here even now. The entire edit history is thus a derivative work, and must be deleted per policy. If there's a snowball keep to not delete a copyright violation, then what we gain is a list of people who need serious education in deletion and copyright policies, for the safety of the project. We have to start again entirely from scratch. ~~I'll have a go in a little while.~~ I've started User:Uncle G/Frederick William Sanderson from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so we just go along with the speedy delete and then you recreate the article from your /FWS article, that's fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't know how relevant the talk page discussion was, considering it's now at AfD. If it must be deleted, then it's G12, isn't it? That's what I thought initially (although I'm not very experienced in such matters) but on reading the notes there, it seemed that some content can be kept. I agree with Chiswick Chap regarding the retention of stub material. How do we know that's a derivative work? -- Trevj (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's an explanation at derivative work. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are the remaining sections a DW per Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works? -- Trevj (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create new article if subject is notable Copyvio (isn't this a G12?) I have no problem, though, recreating the article if the subject should prove notable. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He has a fairly long entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and has a biography written by H.G. Wells. And that's far from everything. There's zero doubt as to notability. This is a documented historical person. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright problems are being handled at WP:CP, therefore this AFD should be closed. MER-C 12:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the copyvio guidance, shouldn't User:Uncle G/Frederick William Sanderson be moved to Talk:Frederick William Sanderson/Temp (via "Can you help resolve this issue? -> Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material" in {{Copyvio}} substituted into the article)? -- Trevj (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be. I'm just doing the same as at User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood, which was in response to another fairly high profile plagiarism problem. For the record: I have no objection to anyone who wants to collaboratively and properly expand User:Uncle G/Frederick William Sanderson as if it were already in article space. After all, the intention is that the edit history end up in article space. Now that I've got a quick stub for monodominance out of the way, I might work on it a bit more myself. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2012 (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.