Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Duncan

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. Tone 16:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Duncan[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)

queried speedy delete for copyvio Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Messages copied in from my user talk page: (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Deleted as "Unambiguous copyright infringement". I'm not so sure about that, on Commons we have OTRS from (IIRC) the campaign manager. This should at least be discussed before deletion. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Utcursch had added OTRS to one of the files, maybe you can see if this really was a copyvio? (even if it was, it should be brought back so it can be fixed) Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undeleting. Anthony Appleyard, this is supposedly an obvious copyright violation according to this blocked IP user. Violation of what? I don't see a URL or anything. I can't defend or fix anything when there's no crime. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Appleyard, can you also undelete Wes Duncan? Should be a redirect. I've searched some sentences from this article and the copyright violation tagging seems just bogus. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless somebody can actually show the evidence of copyvio. Yes, this probably needs a bit of cleanup, but I'm not seeing anything that's egregiously advertorial enough to just assume it's a copyvio without actually seeing where it's purportedly copied from — and he does have a clean WP:NPOL pass as a member of a state legislature, so even if there is a real copyvio issue here we would just rewrite the copyvio and then revdel the offending text from the edit history afterward, rather than entirely throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: some parts were written by his campaign manager (Vicfarland, confirmed by OTRS), while he has an obvious COI the contributions were generally fine NPOV-wise. If he had copied anything he had written previously for a campaign site (note: it doesn't look like that would even be the case), that wouldn't be a copyright violation. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. In terms of the copyvio, I'd love to see evidence of this like everyone else here - but even if it exists the article should be able to be easily recreated. SportingFlyer talk 09:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; copyvio claims are completely unsubstantiated, no other valid arguments for deletion have been advanced, and the nominator's been blocked for block evasion. This statement applies only to the IPs; Anthony Appleyard is blameless. Copyvio always remains a reason for speedy deletion should the allegations be substantiated in the future. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per earwig - [1] - there are some similarities to Wes Duncan's campaign page. However which one came first and whether they are indeed close enough copies or violations (given authorship by Vicfarland) is a question. The individual clearly meets NPOL. The few phrases (as opposed to positions) which are possible copies should be cleaned up if this is indeed a vioaltion - that's not grounds for deletions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but substantially clean up. The page currently quotes his campaign website. I have also never seen a page for a one term state legislator devote an entire section to military history, which I suspect also came from his campaign. Avidohioan (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passed WP:NPOL and cannot find clear evidence of copyright violation).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer and Nyttend.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the requirements of NPOL Chetsford (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2018 (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.