Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone newspaper

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 Theodor Lohmann due to copyright violations from the German Wikipedia and delete material on Telephone newspaper copied from Citizendium until such time that a compatible license is agreed upon. Tijuana Brass 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telephone newspaper

Telephone newspaper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Theodor Lohmann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)– (View log)

This article is copied in full from Citizendium, which is listed there under the same title. My concern with this article is not whether the content is well written, notable or verifiable, but rather that Citizendium has yet to define whether their articles are to be public domain, open source, copyleft, GNU, or something else. According to the disclaimer at the base of their page, a decision will be made in the near future, but as I see it, it's best to play it safe in the time being and not wander into any potential legal issues.

Comment adding Theodor Lohmann, who is in the same boat. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Should an appropriate license be decided upon at Citizendium - and I'm optimistic that it will - then by all means, let's bring this article over. In the meantime, the wiki can wait - it won't be the end of the world. Delete, albeit temporarily. Tijuana Brass 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Until Citizendium has decided upon a license and officially licensed their articles under said license (and it proves to be compatible with the GFDL), we can't use their material. CSD:G12 applies here, so technically it's a speedy delete. henrik•talk 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Additional comment: Ancient Celtic music was in the same boat as the above, but speedied by me. In the case this AfD determines there was no copyright violation, it should be restored. henrik•talk 21:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

*Rewrite away the copy vio and then keep. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted the ancient celtic music article and also forked another two articles from Citizendium: Theodor Lohmann and Telephone newspaper so whatever is decided should be applied to all three. Anyway when I copied them over I did so because I though they were well written and were missing from wikipedia with the exception of Telephone newspaper which was a stub. At the time I checked citizendium's copyright policy here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Copyrights, which states: All articles with content sourced from Wikipedia to the Citizendium are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. All other contributions are considered to be released under an open content license yet to be determined.

So I assumed that this should allow us to copy their content. After this article was nominated for deletion I decided to look into the matter and apperently they are going to decide on their license by november 15 and the three candidates are the GDFL (the same we use over here), CC-BY-SA (which is compatible with the GDFL and again would allow us to usethe content) and CC-BY-SA-NC which would limit commercial use and so would be incompatible with the GDFL. The question remains however if we can copy their material now as they themselves state that its currently distributed under a free license. In any case their deadline for choosing a license is close enough that I think we can wait and then take any appropriate action.

PS: made the same post in two talk pages, hope it explains what happened, as to my vote, as people said above they should proprably be deleted I was under the impression that the content was already free when I copied it, gona have to wait untill november 15 to know for sure I guess. RIP-Acer 21:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Whatever they conclude, if they intend to keep content forked from Wikipedia, according to the terms of the GFDL used here, they also need to release such content under the same license. From Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks:

Wikipedia's license, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and reproduce a complete copy of the license in all copies of the work, and must acknowledge the main authors (which some claim can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia).

At any rate, that's a matter which will need to be pursued outside of this AfD. To return to the question at hand, should the closing admin decide to delete the material as a precaution, it's an easy matter to restore it should the license decided upon by Citizendium be compatible with our own. Tijuana Brass 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

New Twist! It appears that the Theodor Lohmann article was translated from the German wiki: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Theodor_Lohmann which in turn was based on a third party source. Assuming that the german arcicle is not a copyvio and that they translated it then we could keep it dont you think? Need opinions :D RIP-Acer 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. Since I'm the person who started this AfD, making a decision on that and closing it out myself would be a conflict of interest, but I agree with your reasoning. Tijuana Brass 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

When I first began this article I was careful not to fork the content but to write a "new" stub. Since then the content has been copied across from CZ. Assuming CZ choses an incompatible license would it be sufficient to revert to the last non-forked diff, or would the whole page need to be deleted and recreated? Witty Lama 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

These are under the IN-LIMBO license: nothing specific, as yet.  :-) Specifically, the articles ARE NOT under ANY free content license, and as such, they are very obviously copyvios, although no one at CZ is calling a lawyer, I assure you.

The Lohmanm article was completely re-written after it was discovered the German WP article was a copyvio.

I'd suggest the articles be speedy deleted lest someone come along and think them GFDL, which just is not so. This and this should not have been removed and was removed out-of-process, apparently.

Basically, you'll need to wait a few weeks till the CZ license is decided. I'm anxious to see what it will be, too! :-)

Stephen Ewen 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete We can't assume that Citizendium's eventual licesne will be GFDL compliant even if it is a free license of some sort, so we can't use their content yet. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Change to speedy keep as the copyvio has been removed and the article reduced to a stub. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. No one has put forth the argument that the articles could be kept right now, and it is important to respect copyrights. Theodor Lohmann ‎ has been deleted by JzG and I just reverted Telephone newspaper to the non-infringing version. The problem this AfD was meant to solve is resolved, anyone want to close this? Once Citizendium has decided upon a license and if it proves to be GFDL compliant, I'd be happy to restore the text. henrik•talk 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Change to speedy keep as the copyvio has been removed and the article reduced to a stub. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

General comment on speedily deleting copyvio's that applies in this instance. Yes, copyvios need to be removed. But this can be done by rewriting as well as deletion. Speedy deletion need not be hasty deletion. Where possible, when the subject is otherwise notable and verifiable, rewriting should be the preferred method. Certainly, even a speedy deletion candidate can be given enough time for someone to effect a rewrite. Where it can be argued that the intent of the source document's creator is to release under some form of copyleft, then a little less haste should be employed in the speedy deletion process. Which is why this afd should have been given more time to proceed to a decision, rather than pre-empted by returning to speedy deletion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and recreate with the stub. Stephen Ewen 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This was non-admin closed. Excuse me, but the thing to do is delete the article then recreate it, since there is complete copyvio version in the history that someone could mistake for a GFDL release. Stephen Ewen 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, non-admin closings are only for simple, non-controversial cases. I'll take care of it. Any questions on it raising a conflict of interest (since I opened this AfD), talk page me. Tijuana Brass 06:00, 9 November 2007 (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.