Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplicate Record Detection


 * 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 delete as copyright violation. Permission provided to the creator of the article here is irrelevant. Wikipedia must have the right to freely redistribute the material, so it must be released under the GFDL or other free license.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Record Detection

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

User RHaworth considers this page to be original research (see Talk:Duplicate_Record_Detection) and voted for deletion. I gave the reason why I believe otherwise, but it is better to let the community decide on what to do with this article instead of having a mini-debate about speedy deletion. Ipeirotis 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Without easy access to any of the sources, I can't confirm OR. However, the fact that this was copied word for word from a thesis or essay, whether or not permission is given is a problem. First, it is written in first person, using "we" and describing it as a paper or essay. Also, it's too long; it's perfect for a long research paper, but encyclopedia articles, while comprehensive, should only give an overview of the topic while this goes very much in depth, over 120KB (recommended max is 32-50). This would probably better on Wikiversity. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Z-man. I am also concerned that the IEEE page (or, strictly, the page to which I am redirected because I am not logged in) says clearly: "Copyright © 2007, IEEE, Inc. All rights reserved." -- RHaworth 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. though I would encourage the author to write a suitable article on the subject-- It's odd that we don't have one. This is not OR really, but just a didactic review article-- in a style not at all encyclopedic by WP standards. I will check the copyright status tomorrow. DGG 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I completely reject the argument that it is too long. Wikipedia is not paper and should go into as much depth as anyone wants to write, as long as it's based on sources. It is true that the tone of the article is not encyclopedic, but that's never been a reason for deletion, only for cleanup.  The only reason I think it should be deleted, and it's a big reason, is the copyright status. I hope the author gives proof he can republish this under GFDL. nadav 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Article size. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright Status The copyright of the article is owned by IEEE according to their policy. The conditions for posting the work elsewhere, as defined by their electronic publication copyright policy is "Authors and/or their companies shall have the right to post their IEEE-copyrighted material on their own servers without permission, "    and "licenses and permissions to use electronic versions of IEEE-copyrighted material (abstracts, full text, etc.) for commercial or other non-IEEE-related purposes may be granted under terms approved by the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board."
 * In my opinion, the likelihood of their permitting its redistribution under a GFDL license is 1%. It would be interesting for the authors to ask them and observe their response. -- my guess may be wrong.
 * The authors have apparently the right to reuse the material in another work, according to the IEEEcopyright form. DGG 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * DGG, thanks for posting the guidelines. My interpretation of the copyright rules was that I can reuse the material, that's why I asked someone to wikify the article and I posted it here. My hope was that people would further improve the article by adding material omitted in the original version, or material that was published after the original publication date. I have sent an email to IEEE asking for permission and for clarification of the copyright policy. My own interpretation is that I retain the right to reuse the material. Ipeirotis 06:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleanup, it's written as a paper, not an encyclopedia article, but if cut drastically I can see some good overview content in the heart of it. Needs a ton of rephrasing too, it's just the wrong style. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Copyright Status According to, the authors retain the right to reuse material extracted verbatim from the work, for derivative works. I consider a wiki version of the article a derivative work, losing the original, peer-reviewed status and the corresponding 'quality seal' that comes from publication in a peer-reviewed journal. (Again, I am not a lawyer, and I am an advocate of open access, so my own interpretation of the rules might be biased.) For these reasons, I vote Keep/Cleanup. There are certainly stylistic issues with the article, but these issues can be fixed. The central issue is the copyright. Ipeirotis 14:15, 6 May 2007 (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.