| Revision as of 03:05, 12 December 2014 editGene93k (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers468,101 edits Listing at WP:DELSORT under Science (FWDS)← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:06, 12 December 2014 edit undoGraniteSand (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,099 edits →Cocaine: wasting peopleNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| *:Yes. ] (]) 02:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | *:Yes. ] (]) 02:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ** I highly doubt that https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2086.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10832384 or http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/appb.htm are is quoting Misplaced Pages. ''If'' all of the sources were quoting Misplaced Pages (they're not, we're quoting them), then we'd have an unsourced article which implies a lack of notability and as such is eligible for deletion. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ** I highly doubt that https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2086.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10832384 or http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/appb.htm are is quoting Misplaced Pages. ''If'' all of the sources were quoting Misplaced Pages (they're not, we're quoting them), then we'd have an unsourced article which implies a lack of notability and as such is eligible for deletion. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ***All under 50% on a topic type which lends itself to duplicate language across sources. Two of those sources are also fair use, they're not copyrighted. The third is not a BBC article and it is pulling substantial material from other sources. The article on Cocaine is not going to be delted, you're wasting people's time and abusing process to make a point. If you have a problem with material in the topic then address it on the talk page. ] (]) 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Well, not really, there are about 10 entries in the list above but the article has 139 references. So even if those were removed as being copies of this article rather than references, we'd still be left with about 129 secondary sources. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ::*Well, not really, there are about 10 entries in the list above but the article has 139 references. So even if those were removed as being copies of this article rather than references, we'd still be left with about 129 secondary sources. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::In fact, the BBC source is which means people can (and probably did) copy content from here to there rather than the other way around. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | :::In fact, the BBC source is which means people can (and probably did) copy content from here to there rather than the other way around. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:06, 12 December 2014
Cocaine
- Cocaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Severe copyright violation. Copyvios report returns:
| Copyvios results show at least a 99.5% copyright violation | ||
|---|---|---|
| Site | Percent violation | direct compare link |
| http://www.lycaeum.org/Cocaine | 99.5% | Compare |
| http://www.wewantsexualfreedom.com/?p=40139 | 99.4% | Compare |
| http://www.uatests.com/drug-information/cocaine.php | 99.2% | Compare |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gIpkLzT2yg | 72.9% | Compare |
| http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/drug-that-spans-the-ages-the-history-of-cocaine-468286.html | 60.7% | Compare |
| https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2086.html | 46.5% | Compare |
| http://www.havocscope.com/tag/cocaine/ | 45.9% | Compare |
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10832384 | 45.4% | Compare |
| http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/appsych/chibps/cocaine | 44.1% | Compare |
| http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/appb.htm | 43.5% | Compare |
| 71 URLs with lower confidence hidden. | Show them. | |
— {{U|Technical 13}} 02:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Question: Aren't those websites using text from Misplaced Pages, not the other way around? Gnome de plume (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2086.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10832384 or http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/appb.htm are is quoting Misplaced Pages. If all of the sources were quoting Misplaced Pages (they're not, we're quoting them), then we'd have an unsourced article which implies a lack of notability and as such is eligible for deletion. — {{U|Technical 13}} 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- All under 50% on a topic type which lends itself to duplicate language across sources. Two of those sources are also fair use, they're not copyrighted. The third is not a BBC article and it is pulling substantial material from other sources. The article on Cocaine is not going to be delted, you're wasting people's time and abusing process to make a point. If you have a problem with material in the topic then address it on the talk page. GraniteSand (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2086.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A10832384 or http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/appb.htm are is quoting Misplaced Pages. If all of the sources were quoting Misplaced Pages (they're not, we're quoting them), then we'd have an unsourced article which implies a lack of notability and as such is eligible for deletion. — {{U|Technical 13}} 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, not really, there are about 10 entries in the list above but the article has 139 references. So even if those were removed as being copies of this article rather than references, we'd still be left with about 129 secondary sources. St★lwart 03:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, the BBC source is user generated which means people can (and probably did) copy content from here to there rather than the other way around. St★lwart 03:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep for what is (Personal attack removed) an honest misunderstanding of how all of this works. GraniteSand (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - yeah, quite a few of those look like Misplaced Pages mirrors with content copied from our article rather than the other way around. Any suggestion that any of those were published before ours? St★lwart 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)