Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocaine


 * 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   keep per WP:SNOW (and how did it take so long for someone to mention that word for this topic?). We're not going to delete an article because someone else copied from it, and the consensus is that's mostly what's happened here. Any actual copyvio problems can be taken care by less drastic means. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Cocaine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Severe copyright violation. returns:


 * Aren't those websites using text from Wikipedia, not the other way around? Gnome de plume (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. GraniteSand (talk) 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 Wikipedia. If all of the sources were quoting Wikipedia (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. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 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)
 * 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 1 1 1 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 1 1 1 03:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep for what is a confused attempt at making a point, trolling, or just 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 Wikipedia 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 1 1 1 02:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You can compare pub dates but that incredibly tedious and, as much of it isn't even copyrighted and so much is user generated, there's really no point. GraniteSand (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't think this is going to be deleted, I think the nomination is a bit confused and AFD isn't for clean-up. But the issue has been raised now and we might as well address it if we can.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't the venue, that conversation belongs on the article talk page. For the record, though, you can look for incremental or small changes to the wikipedia article and then compare it the web article. We had a similar situation over at the Navy SEALs article. GraniteSand (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree at all, just trying to avoid stubborn bureaucracy before this is SNOW closed (pun intended).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:09, 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)


 * Keep Even if the article is bad, how can the topic not be notable and worthy of an article here? Borock (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - An article is definitely needed. The drug is notable.  Even if there is copyright violation, and it appears that other web sites have been copying Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia copying them (thus possibly violating Copyleft), the idea of deleting this article is absurd.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Have you asked/warned those who have violated CV? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not possible. The talk page of the bot that copied the content is fully protected not to mention the bot is blocked. . — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 04:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep So many other venues to correct and finesse this information exist before AfD should ever be pursued for an article like this. I'm feeling charitable tonight so I won't be serving WP:TROUT to the nominator, but I'm assuming the case here is the sources are copying from us.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I ran the copyvio tool against a few articles I wrote, and the results were a bit amusing.  Besides the fact that at least one of the articles I've written has somehow ended up copypasted into someone's blog, any common phrase triggers a false positive.  There are only so many ways to say, "The film stars Jack Nicholson."  Eventually, you're going to get a copyvio false positive against Roger Ebert.  I looked at the report for this article, and I think that's what we're seeing here: Wikipedia mirrors and false positives.  Even if there were bulk copyvios, I can't imagine how deletion would be the solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The first article I wrote on Wikipedia was on California copper artisan Dirk van Erp. A few years later, I saw a museum exhibit of his work, and about 60% of the biography was identical to my article. They copied me; I did not copy them. It seems much the same is going on here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hardly need another for a snowkeep, but yeah, then we'd have an unsourced article which implies a lack of notability and as such is eligible for deletion just seems like a misunderstanding of what we typically delete things for (among other things, an article being unsourced doesn't mean it's not notable, and there's a process of searching for sources assumed WP:BEFORE nominating. I'm all for removing copyrighted material on sight, though, so I can understand wanting to take drastic measures given a situation of ~99% copyvio. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow keep this already as a misunderstanding of the proper use of the AfD process and/or a failure to properly apply WP:BEFORE. Being generous. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2014 (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.