- AIMMS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Wikiquestions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to start this DRV discussion [1] and [2]. I am completing it. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIMMS, I will respectfully defer to the community from the deletion review process here. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure was proper. There was clear consensus based on policy (promotion and copyright violations). Gigs (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure.
I hope that I don't sound like I'm nitpicking, but Cirt, your "respectfully defer" comment does not give us much insight into your reasoning. Nonetheless, the outcome of that AfD is quite clear. While we are (unfortunately, IMHO) in this decide-whether-to-permit-recreation-even-though-no-one-has-requested-salting business, permit recreation (of noncopyvio, of course) if new WP:RS supporting notability is found, and permit userfication of noncopyvio material upon request. Tim Song (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC) struck userfication; original is G12-able. Tim Song (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, yes. The outcome is crystal clear to anyone who's familiar with the AfD process. In the case of Witch (etymology), for instance, however, the result is not so clear - at least one DRV participant noted that xe would have closed as no consensus instead of keep. In such cases, I'm generally disinclined to disturb the close, since closing AfDs often involves balancing different arguments; but for exactly the same reason, saying that the reasoning is "self-explanatory" is not really helpful, either. Tim Song (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have issues with my comments on another page, it would be more appropriate to leave a friendly note at my talk page, or at that page, instead of conflating issues with different articles. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue, as I see it, is a pattern. When I see two almost identically-worded comments in different DRV cases from the same closing admin in 7 days that say about nothing in either case, I thought I'd just note that. I'll stop. Tim Song (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Note: The re-created version of the article by Wikiquestions (talk · contribs) [3] seems to be virtually the same as the previously deleted one [4]. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt. Cirt interpreted the AfD consensus correctly and I think Wikiquestions should be prevented from recreating the article time and again until the concerns raised in the AfD have been addressed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that I see no attempt to recreate the article time and again; more like a confused newbie who can't find the way here. The final AfD comment, moreover, noted that this may well be notable. Unless and until we see actual evidence of recreation after this DRV is closed, I see no need for salting. Tim Song (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it was already recreated once, after the AfD was closed, and somehow this "newbie" had the same text as the deleted version... Cirt (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this newbie indeed is very confused about the process (am not re-creating time and again; just once, as I understand I needed to.. sorry). Just trying to get answer on how/why some pages or deleted and some or not. Can anybody tell me (and I am still waiting for an answer on this one) why similar pages as CPLEX, AMPL, etc are not removed. Like to learn from all this, but seem to get more frustrated by it :-(. Wikiquestions (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Said content was available here for all the world to see. It may be copyvio (I'm uncertain about the precise copyright status of that page), but I would not hold it against this user, when xe explicitly admitted that it was a copy. Interestingly, moreover, xe started this recreation with {{delrev}} and nothing more, and after contacting the deleting admin. Does not sound like the typical content recreator to me. Tim Song (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonetheless, it is both A) Recreated content, and B) Copyvio. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that the page should not be deleted; it should; and G12 applies so it can even be speedied. But I'm not prepared to say, at this point, that the page should be salted. Tim Song (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as it appears both this recreated version is copyvio and the same as the prior deleted version, and there were concerns raised in the AfD about spam issues, salting sounds like a good idea, so I agree with S Marshall (talk · contribs) on that. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can someone hold a copy of this info against me, as it was both written by me (and I was asked to for NEOS) - but of course, you could not know this. Besides, this was not the original complaint (before re-creation). I think I am giving up.... sorry to see what wikipedia has become (people trying to proof a point that only takes away information from the public and hurts the referencing in wikipedia as a whole). I am not made for this. Wikiquestions (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you hold the copyright, you need to resolve the matter with WP:OTRS. Tim Song (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is linking to a wiki page on a different wiki. That wiki's copyright notice is here. The U.S. government and others acting on behalf of the government have "a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in these documents to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and perform publicly and display publicly by or on behalf of the Government". So it is not public domain, and it is not clear whether copyright vests in the Argonne National Laboratory, The University of Chicago, or in the authors of the specific pages, or since the text was largely also a copy of the linked to company's web pages whether that wiki text is not properly available and copyright is still with the company the article was about. This will be messy. GRBerry 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Messy indeed. Wikiquestions, the easiest way seems to be writing a clean version from scratch. It's not that long, so it should take considerably less than 7 days, which is how long this DRV will take. The AfD nom says it's an old article, though I have no idea how old it is. In light of that, I'm not persuaded that spamming concerns justify salting absent evidence of further recreation attempts. Tim Song (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion because the AFD was unanimous and
speedy delete current versions under WP:CSD#G12 as a copyright violation. I turned in my admin tools last year or I'd do the deletion again myself. As the last commentator in the unanimous AFD said, the article was a copyright violation from this particular company's website. I've used {{tempundelete}} to get the copyright violation off the visible version of the article, even though the full history was not restored, so it is slightly misinformative. Of course, nothing prevents an editor from creating a new, NPOV article from sources that are reliable and independent if they can find such. GRBerry 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC) New stub doesn't have the copyright issue. GRBerry 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, nothing here indicates that the deletion process has not been properly followed. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral comment. I am looking at the last available version [5] and thinking: is this English? Does this even mean anything? Let's look at the first sentence: "AIMMS is an advanced development environment for building optimization based decision support applications and advanced planning systems." I dare anybody to explain what this means. The words are English, to be sure, but they don't mean anything. All it says is "AIMMS is something important that does something important about something important." That's it. Let's face it, the entire sentence is completely meaningless, despite all the right words such as "advanced", "development", "environment", "optimization", "decision", "support", "applications", "advanced", "planning", "systems" and several more. Anyway, what's the next sentence? "It is used by leading companies in a wide range of industries in areas such as supply chain management, production planning, logistics, forestry planning and risk-, revenue- and asset- management." The only word that springs out is "forestry", meaning something to do with forests. Everything else is equally meaningless. (And I haven't yet said anything about all this awful twaddle being apparently taken verbatim from here!) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. (am I allowed to do that as I took part in the original AfD?) The article cannot be allowed in its current form because it is a clear copyvio. If it is recreated by merely rewriting to avoid the copyvio, I will nominate it for deletion again on the grounds that it is non-notable. It has zero reliable sources and no potential reliable sources could be found during AfD. In fact it has zero sources of any kind other than the manufacturer's own website. SpinningSpark 09:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, absolutely nothing wrong with the process here, policy-based arguments prevailed as they should. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I firmly endorse the deletion of all revisions of this page dated up to and including 2009-09-11. There is only one policy that need be considered here and it is copyright policy. Both the original content and the re-created content were straight word-for-word copies of copyrighted ("© 1989-2009 Paragon Decision Technology") non-free-content prose written by someone else. Such content is not permitted here. Wikipedia is for free content only. End of story.
As to the NEOS wiki page, note that it was copied there by accounts named "DeLange" and "PimBeers" in 2008. There is no "Wikiquestions" in its revision history. The same copyrighted non-free-content text submitted here, at Wikipedia, was originally submitted by G.de.Lange (talk · contribs), and subsequently edited by PimBeers (talk · contribs), in 2006. Wikiquestions (talk · contribs) has no edits on Wikipedia prior to this month. The Wayback Machine has this prose on the AIMMS WWW site in 2003, years before either article on either wiki existed. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it turned out to be copyvio, I fully agree that the deletion should indeed be endorsed; what about Wikiquestion's new stub? Is that copyvio as well? I didn't get to check before it was deleted again. If not, I'd like to have it userfied to me so that I can add the sources I cited above to cure the WP:N problem. But I know next to nothing about it, so in the end the best I can do is probably a sourced stub. Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
