Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study

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 delete. Article was deleted through CSD for COPYVIO. (non-admin closure) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable research study (or component thereof). Only substantive editor has COI (declared). The content appears to match that of https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/4679?q=toledo&archive=DSDR but it's possible that (due to the connection of the contributor) it is allowed by their employer/license-holder. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – We need explicitly stated permission from ICPSR Data Holdings, the publisher and copyright owner. Since this was from 2011, that is unlikely to materialize at this time. The editor claiming to work for the organization is not enough. OTRS has to be involved and the permission verified. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biodemographic Models for Reproductive Aging Project (another page I nominated yesterday analogous to this one). Looking more, the others created User:DSDR tech seem to be comparable. Should I file a new nom for them, or add them here (and merge that other one here also?), or do you want to tag them for speedy? DMacks (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks, the only thing that should stop you is if the material has be significantly edited since creation and then copied to other articles. Even then those infected articles would have to be cleaned for COPYVIO. I do not think that is likely to have happened in these two articles you mentioned. User:Diannaa is an expert on these things. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say WP:NUKE them all. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks I tag all but 2 of the articles created by the user for CSD. Here is what remains:

These two are not as clear cut of a COPYVIO but I think they should be deleted as well. You would have to nominate them separately. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No way a description of a single study - missing the results, weirdly - is a notable or encyclopedic topic. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:19, 14 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.