Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everest: A Climb for Peace


 * 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.
 * The article as it is now is clearly a copyright violation from http://www.everestpeaceproject.org/dvd_film_overview.html. As is This version. This other version is fine and will be moved to mainspace to replace the current copyvio version.DO11.10 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Everest: A Climb for Peace

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nothing here michfan2123 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There WAS something there, but someone deleted all the content when putting in the copyvio notice before an admin could look at it and make a judgment. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment when an article is a copy violation you're supposed to "replace the contents of the page with the tag" etc per WP:COPYVIO. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are, but you are then supposed to leave it like that to see if someone can write a notable article without it being a copyvio. If they can they then ask an admin to install it in place of the copyvio. There is no good reason to delete this at this point. --Bduke (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. I made a non copyvio less spamy (+ more references) version a while ago and mentioned it on the talk page. It's just been sitting there waiting for an admin to look it over. :) I'd forgotten about this article honestly or I would have brought it to an admins attention. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looking through the history, there appears to be some notability for this documentary. Orlando Bloom's involvement is interesting, but the reaction from the Dalai Lama is significant - and has been covered in secondary sources. I think there is an article here, but it needs to be brought to a stub and built back up with sources, not copyvio. Also, since when is a Wikipedia Infobox a copyright violation of another site? Surely that could remain, at least? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I nominated it for deletion. Even if there was something there, it is apparently copyright infringement. michfan2123 (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I had explained previously that I was the copyright holder...nevertheless, since someone indeed deleted the page - I decided to rewrite the entire page so this would not be a problem anymore (see the "temporary subpage" that I re-wrote) and so that should not even be an issue at this point! - And so please approve this new rew-written page and make it live once again. 24.20.122.223 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Lance Trumbull


 * 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.