- The Pioneer Trail (tour) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I nominated this for deletion, and in a well-attended debate, I was the only person in the debate who felt it should be deleted. On about day six of the AfD, I spotted that in addition to the other problems this article has, it's also a copyvio. I think this is not an insignificant point, but it received no attention during the debate; and the closer has declined to self-revert.It is a copyvio, and I don't care what the automatic tool says. We're comparing a fixup of a machine translation of a copyvio against a free translation of the source text, so of course the tool isn't going to pick up the similarities. I'm afraid it's necessary to read, comprehend, and think. Overturn and relist. —S Marshall T/C 17:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sent to WP:CV. I'm in no position to speedy it - my high school French is decades out of date and was never any good (here in the States, they only teach you enough to pass standardized written tests) - but another admin who can read more than about a quarter of the source and intermediary page might be willing to. This didn't necessarily need to come through DRV for the article's sake, since its content is orthogonal to its notability; nevertheless, it was a poor candidate for a non-admin closure, and the proper result should have been "defer to WP:CV", not "nose-count says 'keep'".@S Marshall: have you looked into getting the article on frwiki removed? —Cryptic 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I haven't. I speak French and German, and I translate from their Wikipedias into ours, but I have no edits to fr.wiki or de.wiki. They have very different rules and procedures compared to en.wiki.—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- en.wikipedia should provide an example of best practice. Sometimes, Wikipedias in other languages appears to have lax adherence to rules, and generous admission of topics of dubious notability, but it would be very poor form for en.wikipedia editors to attempt exert control over the other projects' communities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (Going off on a tangent here:) Well, that may be true of some wikis. Culturally, de.wiki has very strict (software-enforced) adherence to rules, a complete ban on fair use files for any purpose, and a disinclination to accept new articles, which are seen as adding to their incessant workload of flagged revisions patrolling. It's much less source-oriented because de.wiki doesn't trust sources, it trusts editors. (Some editors, that is.) It's also got a relentless focus on prose style and quality that we don't have here at all. Fr.wiki is also less source-oriented and more editor-trust-oriented.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have seen similar, and other cultural difference at yet other language Wikipedias. There are definitely cultural differences, and sensitivities should not be clumsily inflamed. I advise that anyone without an established presence at fr.wikipedia.org should not jump in and seek to management them according to our customs. I note that the "copyright violation" noted here is an extremely rigid definition, verging on paranoia (see meta:Avoid_copyright_paranoia). en.wikipedia.org might be more in error than them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be that frwiki wouldn't care about this degree of paraphrasing if they knew about it. It may even be that they already do know about it, and don't care. But the more likely case is that they don't know about it, and informing them could do no harm. —Cryptic 04:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12. NB, in the fairly long edit history, there is only one substantive edit, and it was the edit introducing the copyright violation. Allow recreation using the Canadian source, other references, and the external links:
- Allow recreation using the Canadian source:
- ...and the current reference list and external links, stripped to here:
[1] [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
- References
- External links
|
- --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I am not an expert in french, I rely on the computer translations and copyvio detectors. My keep vote was entirely based on that. -- Dane2007 talk 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll just say that my speedy keep !vote on the time was based on the original deletion rationale, which wrongly claimed that the article was an irreparably bad machine translation -- and seemed to call for its deletion as a sort of test case for a perceived problem with other machine translations in the backlog. I had looked through about eight or so French articles there and all but one was okay. I simply didn't see a valid deletion rationale at the time -- but didn't keep a watch on the Afd and was not aware that the nominator changed his argument later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the language issue I can't evaluate the deletion argument. I'd suggest that AfD is probably the right place, with a notice sent to the appropriate wikiproject if one exists. So allow a relist with the new deletion argument (which I don't think DRV is needed for in any case, but if it helps...) Hobit (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? No I think the nominator is right, at least in this: a non-admin close is still a close. I don't see how it could "relisted" w/o a DRV? Anyway, this whole episode may be moot as there's a big fat COPYVIO template over what used to be the article... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen/Delete. The closer should have noted the copyright issue raised late in the discussion (and, at the least, undone the close when it was pointed out to them). Of course, if the copyright charge stands, the article could be G12 speedy deleted anyway.--regentspark (comment) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- With multiple stories in both La Presse and Le Devoir, as well as the local Coaticook-area coverage, it's probably notable, but I just don't have the time or interest in stripping it back to a bare-bones referenced text. If this attraction actually sticks around, is expanded further or gets more English coverage, perhaps another editor will come along and recreate it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I guess "reopen/delete with no bar against rewriting/recreating a copyvio free article" is more accurate. Either way, we should reopen the debate to see if the article can remain after the copyvio infringements are taken care of. --regentspark (comment) 16:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- List at WP:CP, which is recommended practice for complex or non-obvious cases of copyright violation. And WP:TROUT the closer for thinking that copyvio can always be spotted by an automated text comparison tool. Hut 8.5 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- List at WP:CP just as Hut 8.5 said. the copyvio is not obvious, and there's a proper place to discuss it, which is not here. If it is substantial, still perhaps it can be fixed, in which case there is no argument for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, not to repeat myself, but it is definitely fixable. We got the refs to create a neutrally worded article, easy, if anyone wished to. I really don't care to, I'm sorry. It's just not my thing I'm not convinced this won't become abandoned in a couple of years. I know notability is not temporary, but I have seen some wacky schemes come and go here in my home province! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and blow up the copyvio. The references are there, they just need to be applied correctly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've made a request on the French Wikipedia to determine the copyright status of the French article: fr:Discussion:Voie des pionniers/Droit d'auteur. Sandstein 17:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, delete, and {{whale}} the closer. The unrebutted copyvio argument trumps the keeps, regardless of the headcount. WP:CP appears to be heavily backlogged, and I see no reason to send this there when there's no serious argument that this isn't a copyvio. T. Canens (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. WP:CP is the established process for checking close paraphrasing, but the vast majority of their work is in English. I trust S Marshall's evaluation, and I second Timotheus Canens's point that no reader of French has argued against it. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
