Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Lucas


 * 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 but clean up the copyvio. ansh 666 02:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ed Lucas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm in a real quandry here. The subject is probably notable, but the actual text of the article is an extensive copyvio of this website, so much so I think we're looking at WP:TNT. Subject is the father of Christopher Lucas, which I've also nominated for deletion. And, just to make things more confusing, has edited this article, so some WP:COI issues there. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep A blind sports broadcaster is a strong claim of notability. Sources include this one, an extensive profile in The New York Times, among other in-depth sources; read it in its entirety before you claim it doesn't support notability. A user named ChrisLucas1968 has edited the article, but so have about 50-60 other editors over the nine-plus years that the article has existed, so COI is not a valid justification. The article should be cleaned up, but that's a task for editing, not AfD. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. The fact that one editor out of 60+ may or may not have a COI is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I get that AfD is not cleanup, but the very first revision, from 2008 of this article is where the copyvio started. The appropriated text is so extensive, I don't see any practical way to resolve the copyvio other than deleting this.  WP:COPYVIO says, If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted.  For such, read, non-infringing.   I suppose I could hack this back to a stub, and hope somebody comes along and does a re-write from scratch, but I'm not sure that's better than just deleting it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyright note: The Yes Network article was published August 6, 2008, while the original article here was created May 20, 2008. That being said this does appear to have been modified a great deal since, so that source itself appears ok. That being, said, this appears to be a very clear copyvio, but again the oldest link i can find is November 2008, so I have no idea who copied who. The only thing I'm able to find that "might" make it clear is that the YES network reference does self-note EdLucas.org, but again that doesn't make it clear which way the copyvio went. The subject is notable no one doubts that, but this does need significant cleanup whether or not it's determined to be a copyvio (My ruling is inconclusive, alas).  Wizardman  16:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (cross-posted from my talk page) There's a website created by the Computer Science Dept at Old Dominion University, "Carbon Dating the Web", and it shows a creation of the www.edlucas.org page at "2007-06-29T19:30:06". While we don't have an archived copy of any versions older than August 2008 and thus no conclusive proof, my guess is that the Wikipedia article is a copy of http://www.edlucas.org/about.html rather than the other way around. Adding: That being said, the article can probably be rescued by removing/re-writing the copy vio parts; it's not 100% copied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2018 (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.