Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Bachand

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 of the debate was no consenus to delete it. Keep or merge, it's up to you guys. — Mar. 16, '06 [20:00] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Mario Bachand[edit]

This article is a massive copyright violation. I don't think that anything can be slavaged from it. I informed Mishkax28 of this on his talk page, but he is continuing to add what appears to be copyright material from Last stop, Paris: The assassination of Mario Bachand and the death of the FLQ, ISBN 0670881961, which he apparently wrote. Mishkax28 has admitted this on my talk page as well as the article talk page. The entire article violates the no original research policy and would also be a copyright violation as the book hasn't been released under GFDL. Descendall 08:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment editor now claims that while he did write this information in his book, it is not a copyvio because he believes that the text falls under Canada's definition of "Fair Dealing." He also feels that it is not original research because although he is the one who wrote the book that he is using, it was published by Viking Press. --Descendall 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the author of the article owns the copyright on the book, he is free to license any or all of it it under the GFDL. One cannot violate a copyright one owns. So assuming that User:Mishkax28 is actually Michael McLoughlin, there is no copyright violation, and it's not even a case of fair dealing. Anyone can provide their own writing to Wikipedia as long as they agree to license it under the GFDL. However, this needs to be documented with the Wikimedia foundation. See: Wikipedia:Copyright problems for instructions on how to do this. On the other hand, the detailed narrative on the assassination does not really belong here. The author could submit it to Wikisource. Luigizanasi 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does he realise that anyone could print off what he writes here and not pay for it? I am suspecting that this might become an advert for the book (i.e. see this book for more info kinda thing). The article also needs to be wikified if it is kept. --Midnighttonight 08:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and prune. Not a copyvio if the author can show he is the copyright owner. The first part is fine and a bit of the speculation could be added to it. the detailed narrative should go. Also, this is not original research. The original research was done when the book was published. However, Wikipedia is not the place for "... a forum for those who wish further clarification of the Bachand murder...". Luigizanasi 06:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FLQ and delete. Forget copyvio, this is a vanity effort by the principal editor to disseminate his work and as a result he has hijacked and mangled the article which is now ridiculously long and essentially unreadable (which at least obviates the attempted vanity in the first place, ha). I think the first part of it is good, and would be happy simply to see the rest excised, but one assumes this may spark an edit war. Hence, I suggest merge the content to the article on the FLQ and leave it at that. Eusebeus 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable person. If copyvio is beleived, tag it as such, and let that process run its course (but it sounds like the contributor is the copyright owner). This AFD is only to decide if we want an article on this topic. Also, I point out, that GFDL,prevents us from deleting if a merge is done. Also, I don't undertstand citing a potential edit war as a reason for whether we keep an article. --Rob 05:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune. Homey 15:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FLQ per Eusebeus. - Runcorn 22:25, 10 March 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.