Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McNamara Russell

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 keep. The nomination appears to be based on the mistaken assumption that the import of text from public domain sources is bad practice (it is not; see Category:Attribution templates). No other reason for deletion is provided. Sandstein 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McNamara Russell[edit]

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

The whole content of the article was copied and pasted verbatim from an unnamed book by one J. K. Laughton that, according to the original edit summary, was published in 1897. On the face of it, this could mean that the text is in the public domain. Whether a copy and paste of the text constitutes a breach of WP:COPYVIO is one matter but it may still amount to plagiarism, especially as the article does not acknowledge its source. In any event, the article has not been "written" in the original editor's own words and the subsequent minor "tweaks" by later editors do not disguise this. To my mind, it is a blatant breach of WP:MOS which defies the spirit of the site in that editors should create articles using their own words but based on verifiable information. Copy and paste is a cheap and dishonest means of acquiring credit for creation of an article. This editor has done the same thing umpteen times over, sometimes using Laughton's work and sometimes using a book by one G. C. Boase, also apparently published in 1897. I admit I am by no means certain of the rules that should apply here and this nomination is placed effectively as a "test case" which I hope will generate a meaningful discussion through which we can determine how to deal with copy and paste edits on this scale. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure why you call the editor's addition of this article "plagiarism" given that he did acknowledge the original author in their edit summary. We still need better identification of the source from which this text came, but it does not appear that they were claiming to have written the original text. Please note, by comparison, that Wikipedia has incorporated large parts of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica because it is in the public domain. Such public domain works are typically not suitable to be incorporated wholesale as articles into Wikipedia due to the need to update the content and/or writing style, but that is a reason to improve the articles, not to request their deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's from page 481 of the 1897 Dictionary of National Biography, and the template for it is {{DNB}}. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears to be notable. Needs to be stubbed because of plagiarism. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not copyvio, but plagiarism, unless the exact part taken is marked. Johnny, we do not stubbify for plagiarism, as we do for copyvio. But it undoubtedly needs to be updated in view of probable later work--In my opinion, the bios is the old DNB hold up better than the old EB articles--perhaps because they are written in a more straightforward and less literary style than the old EB, but I doubt there's anything there which could not be improved by revision. the later career at least needs some expansion. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 28 September 2009 (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.