Talk:Bobby Roe
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Contested deletion[edit]
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. It's a horrible policy to "speedily delete" a page because a small portion may contain text from another website. I typed all text word for word, and suppose the text inserted about Roe's career was never reworded. That's a mistake on my end. I absolutely agree that copyright is unacceptable. Everyone should be credited for their work and research. However, the exact phrase from imdb.com/what was inserted into Roe's article, is in many places around the web–it's a widely used sentence in discussion of the actor and it's not a very "personal" work. Again, this isn't an exception for copyright nor is it an excuse. It's simply a solid fact. I know the world is deeply against "copyright" and does everything in its power to terminate it. I should've expected this from the Wikipedia administrators. I will be more careful next time.
Honestly though, as I said before, it's a horrible policy to speedily delete an article because a sentence wasn't reworded... even if there's a "zero copyright tolerance". What if most of the other article isn't copyright infringing? Instead, maybe Wikipedia should simply try warning people. Do the 'staff' here realize that instead of deleting the whole page, the text can simply be edited? I mean, it's no big deal. We can just go back and re-word the article. It's as simple as that. No need to delete any Wikipedia articles. I believe that's just one way that Wikipedia is denying an abundance of relevant or worthy information to their site. It's very easy for admins to remove information. Bots included.
Any who, that's just some food for thought. I'll be more cautious on my end and rephrase the text. No need to be hasty. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome to remove the copyrighted text, but what has been done so far does not alleviate the issue. reddogsix (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, well thanks for the input. What else can be done though? The copyrighted text has been reworded. What else can be done to protect the article from deletion? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)