Talk:Sellappan Nirmala

Copyvio check
The article as I originally found it did indeed qualify for WP:CSD, but I believe I have got rid of most of it. There are a few bits of close paraphrasing left, and I am going to try and fix those now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, ! It was indeed a G12 candidate, and was deleted (at my request) by at 9.37 this morning. The second attempt seemed to me marginally better, and the person is possibly notable, so I blanked it instead. As an admin you are of course fully within your rights to remove that blanking; however, I don't believe that you were right to do so here. The initial version of the article contained substantial violations of the two sites I listed (or other sites carrying the same content): 1, 2. That copyvio has not been removed from the article, and leaving it there and copy-editing it bit by bit is not what we do (because of the risk of creating a derivative work). The copyvio needs to be completely removed from the article, and then (if anyone wants) the page can be rewritten on a clean slate. At the moment, there is still a quite unacceptable level of infringement (1, 2). The article needs to be properly processed (if I came across it in its present state I would blank and list it without hesitation).


 * Could I ask you to either restore the copyviocore template so that this can be dealt with in due course by one of the tiny handful of WP:CP regulars, or to process the page properly yourself (remove all tainted content, save, revdelete, rewrite at will)? If you follow the former path, the original author will of course in the meantime be free to work on a copyvio-free rewrite at this page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed pretty much all of the close paraphrasing. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is now reporting 30% - "violation unlikely" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , I don't want to be a pain, and I don't want to be rude, but you do understand that the text highlighted in red by the Earwig tool represents the copyright violations that are still present in the article, right? (except for the proper names, of course) The copyright violation is not unlikely, it's an absolute bloody certainty. It was there, and it hasn't been removed. Fudging about with a few words at a time does not do the job. And you've done nothing whatsoever about the copying from the other source.


 * I don't know what to do about this now. Do you want me to ask for a second opinion? To take it to WP:AN? Or would you perhaps restore the blanking template and let those who are familiar with this area of work deal with the problem in due course? Again, I don't want to be rude, but I do this stuff every day, and I'm really not sure that you do (I see you doing all sorts of other good stuff, of course). The last thing I want is confrontation, but I just can't understand why you are prepared to condone this sort of violation. Sorry, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have copyedited a little more and Earwig is now reporting Violation unlikely : 18%. The only things left are proper nouns that cannot be written any other way. If your complaint was simply I hadn't revision deleted earlier revisions, I've now done that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My complaint is that you haven't removed the copyright violations. I don't know where you got the idea that copy-editing a copyvio would make it better. Do you see that anywhere on this page, for example? You've turned a blatant copy-paste into a close paraphrase, but you have not resolved the problem. If this copyright source contains the passage "… the early discovery leveraged the government with enough time to develop a paradigm and minimize the spread of this Virus" and " ...when she discovered presence of HIV Virus in Indians", why exactly do you think it acceptable to leave in the article the passage "The early discovery leveraged the government with enough time to develop a paradigm and minimize the spread of this Virus when she discovered presence of HIV Virus in Indians"? That's a copyright violation. I'm going to ask for more eyes on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In the time it took you to write all this and get yourself into a terrible flap, you could have just removed the nonsense sentence, since you waffled on so much I had no real idea what you were talking about. I actually edit conflicted with just now who was doing exactly the same thing. The fundamental issue here is not to bite the newbies. It's not hard to edit articles. And don't spam a newbie's page with twinkle legalese, please. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  23:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources deriving from the BBC coverage
I have not added these but they are worth noting in case notability is ever called into question:
 * a note in Forbes (under "Asia-Pacific", below the article
 * a long article, with pictures, in Marie Claire . Yngvadottir (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)