Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen of Troy Faustus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Helen of Troy Faustus
Fragment of source material, delete or transwiki. +sj + 13:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No votes recorded. Relisting to generate discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, it's source material with no analysis. Tempshill 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, copied wholesale from The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus#Famous Monologues -- Taiichi «talk» 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Simon Cursitor 08:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced and inappropriate for Wikipedia.Gator (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete uncited and copied source material --Krich 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment It's not unsourced or uncited: the opening paragraph is primarily a source citation. But it is just a straight copy from another Wikipage, absent of any real context. -- Taiichi «talk» 01:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I may not be familiar with Wiki conventions on this, but if the words are copied directly from a secondary source, with no reference to where it came from, I consider that uncited. The opening paragraph *was* a citation in the orginal Wikipage - here is is uncited and the source material copied. But this is semantics, and I mainly reply to learn more about Wiki practice in this area. Thanks. --Krich 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, ok, I see your point now. I think it was really unintentional. My "delete" vote was more to the point that the page was, IMHO, a newbie's test page that was done without malice (which is grounds for speedy, actually.) -- However, this does make for an interesting situation. While the page is copied directly from another Wikipage, The play text is itself public domain, and sourced by the preceding paragraph. This leaves the preceding paragraph as the uncited material. Thus, we have text which is primarily a citation for something else, that is itself not properly cited - oh, the irony! -- Taiichi «talk» 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I may not be familiar with Wiki conventions on this, but if the words are copied directly from a secondary source, with no reference to where it came from, I consider that uncited. The opening paragraph *was* a citation in the orginal Wikipage - here is is uncited and the source material copied. But this is semantics, and I mainly reply to learn more about Wiki practice in this area. Thanks. --Krich 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment It's not unsourced or uncited: the opening paragraph is primarily a source citation. But it is just a straight copy from another Wikipage, absent of any real context. -- Taiichi «talk» 01:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Stifle 10:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nominationMadman 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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.
