- 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 Mr.Z-man 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) Search ()
I speedy deleted the article as being a CSD G12 blatant copyright infringement of AbsoluteArts.com. A disputed as to whether it was a copyvio caused the article to be restored by another admin. While that issue is being resolved, AfD seems appropriate since Steven Cook has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Steven Cook to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee T/C 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I just commented on the talk page earlier saying this. I don't think he's noteable.Merkinsmum 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Is there some ulterior motivation here? The copyright thing was obviously frivolous because even a glance at the website in question makes it perfectly clear that the wikipedia article is not a copy. It seems as though we are just looking for an excuse to delete. What is the real motivation? -- Lilwik 02:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I take it that you agree with the nomination in that Steven Cook has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Steven Cook to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee T/C 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly never said that, and I do not agree with that. I honestly don't know anything about Steven Cook, but I know this sudden push to try to get this article deleted by any means possible is wrong. A good editor wants to improve articles, not hold grudges against articles. This article should be marked and considered as a stub and it should be given time to collect more material in the natural course of editing. It is far too young to delete for lack of content. (And it certainly shouldn't be deleted while the article itself is hidden because of a copyright issue. One thing at a time, please.) -- Lilwik 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (for now anyway) I can't see the logic of this: "While that issue is being resolved, AfD seems appropriate" - we are discussing it and trying to resolve the issues as a number of editors who have commented don't even think the current version is a copyright violation. Until we address that, and work on improving the article following suggestions made I'm unsure how we can even start the ball rolling on an AfD. (Emperor 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- If you know of reliable source material that may be used in the article, then list the cites here in this AfD. If you do not list any in this AfD, then the closer will understand that you could not find any reliable sources either. -- Jreferee T/C 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will take time to develop the material for an article like this. It doesn't have many editors, but that doesn't mean that it is worthless. -- Lilwik 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Uh, the entire article appears to have been deleted. Qworty 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the article history prior to the addition of the copyvio notice for the complete article text. Postdlf 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- here is the last version before or all the tagging and such like. Also see the talk page for discussion on the copyright violation issue and on improving the article. (Emperor 13:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Check the article history prior to the addition of the copyvio notice for the complete article text. Postdlf 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment well the version a few versions back which I tagged, looked to contain a lot of copyvio to me, and I found it solely because I randomly came across an article by one of the editors involved about Mee (musician), which was a complete copyvio. Regardless of whether a copyvio is there, I think he is not mentioned in reliable sources much. None of the editors supporting his article remaining, have mentioned any sources here. If you think he's had large pieces written solely about him in mainstream media, please mention them here or he will be deleted as non-noteable. This is what we are discussing here in this AfD, not the copyvio issue. No I don't have an ulterior motive, if you look you can see I haven't pushed for deletion in this AfD, merely commented that I'm not sure he's noteable. I'm open to you showing me the sources- convince us!:) Or aren't there any reliable sources?Merkinsmum 16:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven Cook is not a very famous person to the general public. I have certainly never heard of him until now, and that means that this article doesn't have a lot of editors, but it doesn't mean that he isn't important and well known by people with specialized knowledge. We are supposed to be a place where people can learn things that they don't already know. If you delete everything that you've never heard of, then no one will learn more than you. This article will take a while to develop because it is more specialized than some, but I'm okay with that. -- Lilwik 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well regardless of whether you disagreed with the copyright decision, matters not. I don't think it was frivolous, the earlier version I marked for copyright had almost all of its content from that other site. This AfD is about notability. It's not a matter of whether we personally have heard of him, lots of things known only to those with specialised knowledge get deleted, because they belong on wikis specifically for that interest, such as one for graphic art or whatever the artist's speciality. Articles on paganism, alt med, all sorts of subjects, get their articles deleted because they just haven't had large enough mentions in mainstream or reliable for that interest sources. If he has been in one of the foremost art review papers or something, that might count. You still haven't shown us the sources.:) Suggests they are flimsy.:)Merkinsmum 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I got the copyvio wrong, I think I was going on an earlier version by one of the editors, who had already had one article deleted as being completely nicked from another site, with no other content. A lot of the article seemed a bit like other stuff online though. Anyway, I deeply doubt he's noteable or meeting the criteria to have an article on wikipedia. Sources please.:)Merkinsmum 20:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well regardless of whether you disagreed with the copyright decision, matters not. I don't think it was frivolous, the earlier version I marked for copyright had almost all of its content from that other site. This AfD is about notability. It's not a matter of whether we personally have heard of him, lots of things known only to those with specialised knowledge get deleted, because they belong on wikis specifically for that interest, such as one for graphic art or whatever the artist's speciality. Articles on paganism, alt med, all sorts of subjects, get their articles deleted because they just haven't had large enough mentions in mainstream or reliable for that interest sources. If he has been in one of the foremost art review papers or something, that might count. You still haven't shown us the sources.:) Suggests they are flimsy.:)Merkinsmum 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven Cook is not a very famous person to the general public. I have certainly never heard of him until now, and that means that this article doesn't have a lot of editors, but it doesn't mean that he isn't important and well known by people with specialized knowledge. We are supposed to be a place where people can learn things that they don't already know. If you delete everything that you've never heard of, then no one will learn more than you. This article will take a while to develop because it is more specialized than some, but I'm okay with that. -- Lilwik 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't look to me to produce sources. I've never even said that they exist. I don't know if they exist or not. I don't know anything about Steven Cook but what's in the article and I don't really care. I just think that it's too early for an AFD. -- Lilwik 21:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - we are still two issues behind here - the copyright violation speedy deletion seems to now be accepted as being incorrect - jumping to an AfD while we are discussing this and we are discussing improving the entry. The only way forward is to scrap this AfD and give us a month - see what can be done. Although this is pretty solid a review by Warren Ellis is a big deal. There is no reason we have to rush to delete this and since the initial premise for the deletion seems rocky I think we should take a step back and try and sort this out first. (Emperor 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Oh and, all the large block quotes in exctly the order given, that were in the article at one point, are copied directly from http://www.alternity.co.uk/hype.html so it has been lifted from various sources. That is all of the article except the intro paragraph is from this source, and some sentences of the intro paragraph are from the source above. Nice job!Merkinsmum 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I just spotted you've linked to that one, but it is 250 words of it, plus it even calls itself 'hype'. Oh and I've just noticed that page is written by himself to sell himself. "all site content © steven cook 2005 except where indicated." http://www.alternity.co.uk/contents.html. So 3/4 of the article consists of his own 'hype'. No bad reviews shown or anything for NPOVMerkinsmum 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're speaking as if quotes were not supposed to be given word-for-word as the source gave them. Were you expecting the quotes to be original material? It's quoted because someone else said it. I have no idea who Roy Voss is, but even I knew that the Roy Voss quote was lifted from words that Roy Voss wrote. What is your point? -- Lilwik 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. They are clearly quotes and show the source of the quote - I am unsure how that counts as copyright violation or we wouldn't be able to quote anything (such things clearly fall under fair use). As has been discussed on the talk page it isn't the kind of format we really want and they'd need trimming down or removing and if they are to be used them it should be as part of a larger "reception" section. Note that hype section contains a lot more reviews and feedback from other notable sources (although I'd not use anything that isn't sourced - the Grant Morrison quote could easily be the result of him being asked for a marketable quote, for example). (Emperor 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete per Jreferee T/C, article seems to be of marginal interest at best and very borderline on the copyright violation; either way not very strong notability. Modernist 00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do people keep saying that there is a copyright issue? Whose copyright is this supposed to be violating? I mean, even in a borderline case there must be a supposed victim, right? Can anyone point to any copied text? -- Lilwik 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are about 250 words from the 'hype' page. Wikipedia rarely uses 'fair use'justification any more, the criteria for it here are very strict, and it wouldn't justify quotes of that length. Also pretty redundant as from the author's own page. I could probably collect 'lovely things people have said about me'. Where are the negative quotes to provide a Neutral Point of View an article here is supposed to have? There are many victims mainly the reader and the encyclopedia itself, as we are not providing them with anything they couldn't read on the other site, so as such an article here is redundant (or free advertising?) It reflects on peoples opinion of Wikipedia if we simply cut and paste. It says a lot that you admit Steven Cook is not a victim of having his copyrighted work put here. It is clearly not under the GFDL, which all content here should be, as he put a copyright stamp on it. Is one of the authors of this article, him? Plus- it's not about whether there's a 'victim'- it's a legal requirement I think, or at least a requirement for wikipedia.Merkinsmum 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do people keep saying that there is a copyright issue? Whose copyright is this supposed to be violating? I mean, even in a borderline case there must be a supposed victim, right? Can anyone point to any copied text? -- Lilwik 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't look for a victim because of any legal requirements, I just wanted to know who everyone thought the victim was, because until now I had no idea. I admit that Steven Cook is not a victim because none of his words are used in the article. Are you saying that he is a victim? Can you cite the words that belong to Steven Cook that we are using in the article? -- Lilwik 03:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ok, I'm going for delete as no Wikipedia:Reliable_sources are being provided. There's no evil crusade/grudge against this article, to say there is shows a lack of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. It's just that as other editors have said, this is an article with little notability, and other editors saw some copyright issues, and as good editors we try and keep wikipedia free of articles like that, and advertising. We've never even heard of Steven Cook before, well I hadn't, so it's not personal and I have no sinister reason for wanting his article gone.Merkinsmum 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the article being young and should be given time to collect content, it's been here almost 11 months.Merkinsmum 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not so old for this sort of article. Of course, if this were an article about a popular TV show then that would be ancient, but you've got to give articles about real people more time. Articles only grow as interested editors discover them and if you delete real world articles just for being in the development stage then wikipedia will end up so full of TV content and little else that it'll be like TV Guide. I say we should delete the quotes and mark the article as a stub, then wait a few months to see if anything happens, then AFD if still appropriate. -- Lilwik 03:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the article being young and should be given time to collect content, it's been here almost 11 months.Merkinsmum 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn artist. Marcus22 20:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only are no secondary sources that fall under WP:RS provided, but none seem to exist in the popular press. GNS turns up jack for "Steven Cook." That said, the blanking doesn't seem necessary at present. MrZaiustalk 11:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn artist. --Fredrick day 21:17, 27 September 2007 (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.