Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etruscan coins


 * 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. This certainly needs much work, but the copyright violation is not demonstrated and we do not delete for lack of sources. We add sources. Bduke (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Etruscan coins

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be an original research piece on Etruscan coinage, or a copy vio. I'll note the manuscript style inline citations, and the fact it was uploaded at one entire piece of prose by the creator. Also, the first version, prior to some wikifying, had the author at the end listed as "Italo Vecchi" Therefore, I submit this is either the original research of "Italo Vecchi" or its a copy vio of some existing piece. Mbisanz (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated This appears to be from the forethcoming work "Coinage of Etruria and Umbria. Parte 1.The coinage of the Rasna: the gold, silver, and bronze coinages from the mints of Cosa, Luca (?),Pisae (?),Populonia,"Velsnani",Vetulonia,Vulci and Uncertain Mints from V century to III century BC" by Italo Vecchi here http://www.edizioniennerre.it/ENcatcerca.php. I used his name and followed it to this website which he references in the submitted article. Granted if its unpublished, we can't be sure its a copyright, but I do think its still inappropriate for inclusion on the basis of copy right issues and/or original research (none of the many parenthetical citations are completed). Mbisanz (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, this brings some more (but not much :-/ ) clarity to the whole affair. I checked the contributions of the main author of the article as well, and it does appear to be an exerpt of his own book, and thus though not necessarily a copyvio, since he retains copyright to his own text; the problem remains of it being awfully close to spamming his own book, and kind of problematic for that reason. I suppose the test of the pudding would be on what the reaction to wikification and editing of the article would be... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well pulling this random line out of "The Etruscans were not frightened to experiment, as is illustrated by the case of an extraordinary struck bronze series with incuse reverses, presumably from Populonia and based on a hundred units (or centesimal system) which may correspond to the struck Roman sexantal as, theoretically of about 54 grams." the amount of original, unsourced research in that one statement makes that statement almost unsalvagable to me. I mean in theory we could wikify all this citations, but they'd still be his interpretation of them, which would be OR to me.  Not seeing how this is saveable, other than to stubbify it. Mbisanz (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was invited to this AfD as editor of the article, but my only contribution was the removal of a speedy tag for copyvio of an unspecified URL, which I couldn't find myself. If the article is to be deleted as copyvio, its source needs to be found. The mere presence of a signature is by no means an indication of a copyvio. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 13:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't citations mean it is not original research? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That should be judged case by case. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me rephrase that. Aren't citations evidence against a presumptive judgement of original research? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the text, as it is now, is very likely copied from somewhere and unencyclopedical in style. I wonder whether it would of any use for anyone trying work on the article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Deleted by Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
 * I suspect when you say unsourced, you mean to say unattributed. Those are two entirely different things. Not that Unattributed is better. Just tell us what text tehy are plagirizing, and we will all be much more satisfied. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles should not be deleted for copyright violation based on suspicion and belief. If anything more substantial than the present innuendo is produced this vote is of course inapplicable, but I can only make a judgment on what has actually been presented. From what I can actually observe, this seems to be acceptable and even valuable material that simply needs wikification.  deranged bulbasaur  16:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Deleted by Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
 * I think the point you may be missing here is, if we knew what it was supposed to be a word for word copy of, we could check if it really was such and it could just be zapped... needs to be specified a copy of which text though, before taht. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're making unverified allegations of illegal activity against a living person. This isn't mainspace, but what you're doing cuts pretty close to libel. I still don't see any actual evidence. You may well be right, but your matter of fact accusations in absence of proof are so highly inappropriate that I considered deleting your post. deranged bulbasaur  22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I've gone ahead and deleted the posts myself, particularly in light of Mbisanz's research.  By definition, one can't plagiarize himself; if the author of the article took someone else's work, word-for-word, that would be a different matter, of course.  If this is drawn from something that is copyrighted, however, the copyright still lies with the publisher.  I agree with you, however, that we have to be careful when we voice our opinions that something is a copyvio or a hoax.  Without an explanation of what the sources are, I still say delete.  Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete in light of elaborated circumstances. For most journals, the transfer of copyright is contingent on the actual publication of the material and would not occur before then. So, if this is submitted to wikipedia first, it is licensed under the GFDL by the author. He can then transfer the copyright, but the new copyright holder would still have to honor the license because it cannot be terminated. However, this situation is iffy enough that it would be best to err on the side of caution and delete. deranged bulbasaur  20:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and avoid copyright paranoia.  We delete copyvio when we know what is being copied. The website give the title of an article, which  may or may not have been published--it says forthcoming, but the date given is "04". If this is is from an extensive article, of the sort scholars write, and the sort which by itself would make up what appears to  be the entire annual issue of a journal, this will just be the introduction and it would be fair use, meeting all 4 tests. We have no idea of the licensing of this material; journal practices vary very widely. The author may have kept the copyright and given the publisher merely a license to publish it. Arrangements vary. I see no attempt on the talk page to ask him aside from our conventional notice. DGG (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was a fairuse intro from a book, wouldn't that still be Original Research or at least be something that should go to wikisource? MBisanz 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless the article is stubbified by an editor (and anyone can do this as they please under the guidelines) removes all material that is unverified and/or uncited.-- VS talk 22:43, 31 December 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.