Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battery conductance


 * 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   Speedy Delete (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) by User:TexasAndroid (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Battery conductance

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The material on this page is from, and the only link on the page is to, http://www.midtronics.com/home/support/resources/batteryknowledgecenter/batteryknowledgecenter.aspx, which appears to be a spam link for Midtronix, Inc. The article was created by a user named. There is no statement on that page granting free access to the material. Further, there is already a page on electrical conductance, which I pointed out to Jmidtronix after the first time I had the article deleted (speedy), and suggested that he use his information to enhance that article. As it is, he hasn't bothered to tie this article to that one in either direction. Since the content also doesn't strike me as very explanatory (compare the electrical conductance article), I'm presenting it for consideration for deletion. Largo Plazo (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to electrical conductance. This is just a spam link. While there certainly is a term called battery conductance, it's basically "electrical conductance within a battery as effected by battery chemical composition or type" which is hardly enough for an article. --Logical Premise (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Equendil Talk 18:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Internal resistance, which is the more common statistic cited for a battery. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the more likely reference going to be how well the battery conducts, or how the resistance is measured? Internal resistance may be a better choice. --Logical Premise (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Internal resistance. That is the appropriate target. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a copyvio. A creation of a redirect after deletion can e considered. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but it's his own web page and he could remedy that quickly. If it becomes a redirect (which seems to be the direction in which this is going) it'll be academic anyway. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - There is no proof that the wikipedia editor is the copyright holder, or has the authority to release the material under GFDL. The person might be an employee of the company with no rights to release copyrighted material.  -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. For the sake of background, here's an exchange I had with him, on his talk page, after the original speedy delete:

Ok, we own the copyright to what was entered into Wikipedia, before I even had a chance to correct the information, it was deleted. In which now I have to go ahead and enter everything again. You should allow more time, before someone makes a deletion to something. My username which includes the company name Midtronics,which is the company. I will get this thing redone and it will be on wikipedia.(Jmidtronics (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC))


 * (1) There is already an article on electrical conductance. I can't stress that enough. If you have material that duplicates what's already there, leave it out. If you have material the productively supplements it, then consider contributing it to that article. (2) If your using your own copyrighted material on the site, be sure you read COPYRIGHT! &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No response from him to that. His next act was to recreate the article. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just convinced myself. I told the guy what was needed and he went ahead and did what he wanted anyway without heed. I've just put a db-copyvio on the article. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.