Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. B. George

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. Due to copyright concerns. May be immediately recreated at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. George

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing this nomination, as the article does meet WP:NPOL. However, there are still copyright concerns. I therefore propose that this deletion discussion be closed with the understanding that I will blank the article and recreate it. Marquardtika (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- ~~failure of WP:POLITICIAN~~Likely Copyvio, see explanation below--Rusf10 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. It also smells like a copyvio, for sure, MER-C, but I only find Wikipedia mirrors when I search for phrases in the text. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep His obituary has him as a state senator and we award "inherent notability" to state senators. Most votes talk of a copyright violation (smells like a copyvio) but have not shown what source material was copied. Both of his obituaries are in the public domain, he died in 1899. --RAN (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the creator has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for being an incorrigibly persistent serial copyright violator (his list of copyright violations is sitting at over 700 and counting), the burden of evidence now falls the other way on his content. Yes, George clears WP:NPOL as a state senator, but that just means somebody will be allowed to recreate it from scratch — but given the creator's history, it's no longer "keep unless somebody can prove that this is a copyright violation" (which a Google check doesn't disprove, as it could also be copyvioed from a print-only source such as a book or a newspaper article). Rather, we now have to delete if somebody can't prove that this isn't another copyright violation, and then permit recreation if somebody else is willing to take it on. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the earlier pro- "Delete" comments seem to not have considered that the subject likely passes NPOL on the basis of being a state senator. This leaves open the question of whether or not to treat this as a presumptive copyright violation. I think further discussion is called for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I not changing my vote, but do believe that he passes NPOL because of his position as state senator. Therefore, I still believe the article should be deleted as a likely copyvio as per Bearcat. However, if the article was recreated properly, I would endorse its existence.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to epistemology it is impossible to prove a negative, that it was copied from somewhere under copyright. The article closely copies his obituary, but that was published in 1899 and is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is in public domain, doesn't make it appropriate to copy and paste the whole thing into wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do that all the time. Every initial entry of a US senator or representative was a direct copy and paste from their congressional biography, and we did that to entries from the public domain Encyclopedia Britannica. You are confusing copyright with plagiarism of public domain material. --RAN (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - references are a deleted findagrave entry and a peripheral reference in subscription biography, neither of which are reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC).~~ Based on reference provided by Enos733 below and fact that the subject is a former member of a state legislature, I agree with Enos733's recommendation - blank and recreate. The new article should focus on the subject's notable aspect - being a state senator.--Rpclod (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as a mayor of a small town, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO since the coverage is local and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and recreate Served in the Louisiana Senate, passing WP:NPOL (As shown in this Google Book entry). However, because of copyvio issues, the existing text should be blanked and recreated using reliable sourced documents. --Enos733 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 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.