Jump to content

Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Documents on the Persian Gulf's name

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. We are likely looking at an exensive summary of a book. As to the subject, we already have an article Persian Gulf naming dispute. Rewriting the article to have a keepable form (as I outlined 2-3 paragraphs, 2-3 images), would likely be a big undertaking, for little added value. It was said that the article was 'too close' to other texts (whether copyrighted or not doesn't matter here), so I think it's best to delete the article in its current form. Note: this doesn't mean that it is possible to start a new article, which compltents the one we have, and which doesn't have these problems.--Eptalon (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Documents on the Persian Gulf's name[change]

Documents on the Persian Gulf's name (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Creol has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Copy vio --Creol(talk) 01:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change]

  • Normally I would just qd a copyvio but this is odder than normal. Much of this article was ripped word for word from one of the listed sources. Copy here of the Iranian government page the awards section is ripped from. A google search of random sentences pulled up a recently deleted page on Wikibooks which seems to have be a copy/paste of here (they were #1, we were #2, wikikidz and the iranian site following closely behind. The article itself is on need of much work as saying its excessive would be polite. 10k of images with an error hidden in there which is what caught my attention. Page by page description at times it seems There is also a complexity issue. Neither of these are ground to delete for the most part but they do color the picture some. As to notability.. I really don't know if it is or isnt. There are sources about it, but to if it is actually notable, I can't say. It won an award, but how big of an award was it? --Creol(talk) 01:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - To griff's comment in ST: There are similarities between this simplewiki article and fawiki's structure, but the content is different, except for the excessive gallery. Copyvio is likely: see results. Rewriting it would be a big undertaking. The article mentions that the book was summarized in a UN working paper: see here, however I find no attribution to the book's author in that document. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 02:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - Fails all criteria of BK. None of the awards it apparently won meet that guideline, nor is there any indication it received significant coverage in reliable sources. Also relevant is the enWP RFD, which had many of the same issues. Griff (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • As is now, this article is unkeepable. A keepable version would be: An intro, with perhaps 2-3 sections summarizing the arguments. With that, we can add a gallery of 3-5 images. Also remember our audsience: this is Simple English Wikipedia, so the language needs to be adapted. In its uncut form, it is a clear delete; if "sanitized" enough, we can talk about perhaps keeping it. --Eptalon (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep : it is useful. the article is online since 2012 . It is very strange that now asked to delete it all! It is definitely useful to keep it. deleting the whole article is not logical. A lot of effort has been put into it. In an interview, the author announced in 2018 and also recently in an article that the contents of his book have been used many times in various magazines, books and online sites, so he has waived his right and that of the publisher. As a result, no one should delete this article under the pretext of copyright. But shortening the article is possible. Cultural sec (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
    The issue here is not the copyright status of the book, but the contents of the article. The contents of the article show similarities to content from other websites on the internet, and without a free license, we are not allowed to copy those text, especially without attribution. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 03:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep : The above mentioned issues to delete the article are not true and judgment based on that is not right . These cases have already been investigated in the Persian wiki. * Persiabearing (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep:there is no copyright violation in the article,at the end of the same articles you mentioned as copy vio ,is written free copyright. or GNU

[1]

[2], In an interview 2009 and also on page 243 of the book, the authour had mentioned :" UN article was an article from the 2004 edition of this book wich he himself had wrote and give it to the MFA of Iran . as we know In UN articles,usully the source and the articles is written in the name of governments not the authors . There is no copy Vio and the article is important but as sugested by- Eptalon because this is simple En wiki ,we can remove some part and maybe all the gallery and make it short . and if i asked to do so i will 

Homaaaa (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Homaa: We are an encyclopedia, we must keep a unbiased view. It is on the editors of this wikipedia to get the article into a form that makes it keepable, and if others have expressed concern that this article may be "too close" to other similar articles, that needs to be fixed. For reasons of transparency: I have changed your edit, by removing and hiding email-addresses, which do not belong in such a discussion.--Eptalon (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • OK Homaaaa (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep : it is better to keep it. it is useful and necessary. Aber piyadeh (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Largely copied from source, and note we already have a sound page on Persian Gulf naming dispute. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC) 05:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep : keep it as it is. Basp1 (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    That is not even remotely an option. Should the outcome be keep, the article will need to be completely redone due to bad layout, vocabulary, structure, style, etc. Pretty much everything... Given how poorly presented this article is, there is very little of this article that would survive the most basic of a clean up. "as it is" is not going to happen, no matter the outcome here. --Creol(talk) 17:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.nynox.solutions/index.php?title=Project:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2022/Documents_on_the_Persian_Gulf%27s_name&oldid=383894"