Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding Invitation Typestyles And Fonts

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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Invitation Typestyles And Fonts[edit]

Completing afd started by User:Dukeseee and removed by article author. I also say Delete - this does not seem like an encyclopedic topic; part of it is a discussion of what fonts are, the rest reads like an advertisement and basically says 'wedding fonts should be fancy' --Jamoche 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for advertising mixed with a how-to of sorts. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV or OR in that the author gives opinions on which styles serve which purposes. I also can't shake the feeling that this is a copyvio from somewhere. SliceNYC 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the feeling it was copyvio too, but googling likely phrases didn't turn up anything. --Jamoche 23:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Of course, it still fails NPOV and NOR. SliceNYC 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, WP:NOT a how-to design the perfect invitation. Based on the other contributions by the creator, Pjbruce, this appears to be part of a spamvertising campaign for a certain website linked at the bottom, so his other edits should be checked. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with User:Kinu. -- Whpq 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While an article on typography in wedding invitations would be interesting and encyclopedic, this article is not it, and it shows no hope of ever being it. Nohat 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Public Libel Comment made against the author by SliceNYC is defamatory. I am the author and can confirm this article was my creation as a knowledgable professional in this field. It was intended to be a helpful article with some useful links, and i apologise if it failed. However you must realise that you do have not right to publish statements like this in a public domain without any evidence. I am quite happy for the article to remain without the external link to our free service. Anyone offering an article on this subject must needs be from the wedding industry. user Pjbruce P.s. I did remove afd which was a genuine error, again my apologies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjbruce (talk • contribs) . :) Dlohcierekim 03:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, you have no right to publish original material here and you author your work under the assumption (you aknowledge it by simply posting here whether you've read about it or not) that your work can and will be criticized at anytime. Criticism of your work is not defammatory, nor is it libel in even the weakest sense. I suggest you grow a thicker shell and stop what appears to be advertisement of your website. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We get a lot of copy and paste copy vio around here. Unless you stated on the discussion page, how would we know? I'm no expert, but I think the Foundation would need some real assurance that it is your own work before accepting anything already existing elsewhere. Considering the real danger we could face for distributing copyrighted work, I think our concern is understandable. :) Dlohcierekim 03:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the official policies of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Libel is not a term to be thrown around lightly. Though I'm no attorney, a quick check of slander and libel makes it seem like my comments are not libelous. What I wrote is my opinion based on my knowledge of Wiki policy and my experience in reading pages that have turned out as copyvios. I offered my opinion on the article, not of you personally. Please be more careful when bringing up libel in the future. SliceNYC 16:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We regrettably take copyright violations extremely seriously here, and as such, we tend to be a bit paranoid (but not too paranoid). Stating that one has suspicion about copyright status of the article is perfectly okay, as that may encourage people to verify the copyright status; stating it's definitely a copyvio without a shred of proof is another matter altogether. Since you state, for emphasis, that you are indeed the copyright holder, we're more than happy to believe you unless damning evidence to contrary materialises. However, we still need to determine whether this material is suitable for Wikipedia. In particular, you're incorrect in presumption that "anyone offering an article on this subject must needs be from the wedding industry" - expertise on the field is very valuable in compiling the article, but we primarily need encyclopedic research, which means aggregation of facts from sources. (See WP:NOR.) Expertise just helps a bit in explaining how facts correlate. As for this article, it really needs sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've heard of advertorials, but "adverticles" are where I definitely draw the line. Yep, the topic could be interesting, assuming someone's been researching this stuff (I bet someone has). Nope, this is not how to start an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. :) Dlohcierekim 03:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you will Author pjbruce. I really don't mind what you do. This is not a newspaper and i do understand that and am glad for it. I do not agree this is advertisement, if you actually read my response i told you to take out the link to our free service it's not a problem and that is the only thing which could possibly turn it into an ad, the other link are sources and nothing to do with me. But the libel issue still stands User:SliceNYC stated plainly that he felt this was copywright violation and it isn't. He didn't even check with me nor did any of you about the genuine nature of the material, yet you public feel free to make your statements. I think wikipedia should be very careful if their going down this road. Personally i will get in touch with the chairman (if there is one) of wikipedia, there really ought to be some guidlines and or training about the way you deal with public domains and material. User:SliceNYC's statement was libelous because it was written in his official capacity and published which as a supposed authority makes it defamatory especially when my user name was attached to it and a business reference. Really guy's this is completely unacceptable. I think the least you can do is publish a public apology on the front page of wikipedia to stand for one month and perhaps next time you will consult authors first. Disgraceful.Pjbruce 09:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just some friendly advice... I would suggest having a nice cup of tea and a sit down and then reviewing WP:COPYVIO (and, apparently, WP:LIBEL) before making your case. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a collection of external links with some text thrown in to disguise the advertising. JIP | Talk 14:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media Law Resources In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.Pjbruce 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged statement meets none of that criteria. It did not hurt your reputation in the least and was a critique of how and what you wrote. Peddle your scare tactics elsewhere, some actually understand the nature and the spirit of the law. Shazbot85^Talk 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pjbruce, AfD discussions are intended to be about the article in question. As such, this is not an appropriate forum for you to continue dragging out this supposed legal discourse. Please take it to another venue, such as your talk page or WP:DR. Thank you. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shazbot85^Talk 15:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, partially as this is more of a 'how-to', and partially because a good chunk of the article duplicates materials found in the typeface article. perardi 04:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are unbelievable I can't believe what I'm reading here. You know I'm not bothered in the slightest about the article (i've got too much else on) what concerns me is the lack of professionalism many of you editors demonstrate and is also what I am currently taking up with the foundation. The fact is people shouldn't be publishing comments that voice suspicions of copywright violation, that is libel under the terms of the law and why risk it? Nobody has threatened legal action, I'm trying to get you to see sloppy dealings with the public like this will only alienate you from the people you mean to serve. If you look at the editorial comments above many of them contain cheap shots and patronizing comments meant to enflame and ridicule. This is attrocius. Not one person has been able to deal with a valid complaint which was simply that instead of publishing incorrect and unjustified suspicions about a professional person, a private message or email would have been much better. I will certainly not contribute to wikipedia again and for one reason only you have alienated me by by your parochial attitude that demonstrates more a sense of a private club than a public service. I regret you've lost sight of the vision gentlemen.CC wikipedia foundationPjbruce 13:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to think people citicizing your work is a bad thing. If you can't take criticism, I suggest you leave or simply not edit. It is completely acceptable for someone to nominate your article for deletion and criticize it until nothing remains. That is completely legal and accepted practice on Wikipedia. You sir, are the only person who lacks professionalism here. You couldn't hack your article being thrown out, you couldn't take the criticism, so you throw a fit and start inventing charges against someone who criticized you. That's seems like a pretty cowardly and pathetic action to me. If you actually have a problem with anything said in this article, I suggest you find a rule against it on Wikipedia and take it up with an administrator instead of making vauge accusations about libel (which you have no understanding of). If you find it strange that no one has dealt with a valid complaint of yours, that because you don't have a valid complaint. The libel "complaint" had my friend and I laughing for a good 5 minutes solid. If you can't defend what you wrote, that's fine, we'll delete it for you. Don't compensate for your inability to defend yourself by alluding to imaginary legal wrongs, simply admit your fault and move on. If your pride can't take that hit, then I don't suggest your put it on the line. Good day sir. Shazbot85^Talk 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comdeic Addition If you'll kindly note, PJbruce, the notes listed below the Save Page button it says, and I quote:

* If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Perhaps read more before having another tantrum over criticism? Shazbot85^Talk 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Shazbot You still don't see, the complaint is about behaviour like yours which is rude and offensive and nothing constructive. I really don't understand why you keep going on about the article, the article has never been the issue. I have indeed forwarded the complaint to the wikipedia foundation along with a copy of this dialogue, I really am apalled that you treat members of the public this way. I think if this were public knowlegde you would loose a lot of support. It's a real shame. Pjbruce 19:15, 8 September 2006 (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.