Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of drugs banned from the Olympics


 * 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. JForget 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of drugs banned from the Olympics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Also:

These articles were imported from Citizendium. There are two problems with this: 1. This requires permanent attribution of the text as coming from Citizendium, no matter how many changes we make later. 2. The licence is not compatible, as Citizendium is not dual licenced, but Wikipedia is. This sets up a class of articles that have to be treated as single-licensed, Non-GDFL article. In short, it means that Wikipedia suddenly has a class of articles under a different licensing scheme from all the others. We can't set up a special class of differently-licenced article, surely. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Importing CC-BY-SA content is certainly allowed, per Meta and Meta again. --Falcorian (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Falcorian. Yes, we can (and do) have 2 classes of article. See the license notice at the bottom of the screen? Only CC is guaranteed ("Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"). GFDL may also apply ("additional terms may apply"), but that's purely on a per-article basis and is the responsibility of the re-user to verify. In other words, you've got it backwards; the GFDL articles are the exception, not the rule.
 * Excerpting from the Terms of Use (emphasis mine):
 * "Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License: For compatibility reasons, any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under CC-BY-SA or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. In order to determine whether a page is available under the GFDL, review the page footer, page history, and discussion page for attribution of single-licensed content that is not GFDL-compatible. All text published before June 15th, 2009 was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility."
 * And regarding attribution:
 * "Importing text: If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. [...] If you import text under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). [...] Regardless of the license, the text you import may be rejected if the required attribution is deemed too intrusive."
 * Considering we already attribute PD content sources w/ FOLDOC (and the like), I think citizendium can hardly be deemed "intrusive". --Cybercobra (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

— Gavia immer (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a talkpage notice box to indicate CC-only articles? 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. We could add it to WikiProject Citizendium Porting, but citizendium seems to cover it IMHO. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. As noted, this type of importing is allowed and envisioned by Foundation-level policy. It's true that we should make a bigger effort to notify people about the license issue before they reuse such contents, but there's no policy violation here.

DELETE The article's content will fit within wikipedia's guide lines. However, it comes across as authoritative with horrible sourcing. Such an article should easily have one cite to the national olympic committee. If the authors fix this than my position will change, but until then it should be deleted. I know wikipedia is not always to be treated as authoritative but the topic of this article and the content it contains must be heavily sourced and verifiable. If not, then the wikipedia community is being reckless.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. It needs clean up is not a reason to delete. --Falcorian (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or if WP:ATA is preferred, see WP:RUBBISH. And it does cite the Anti-Doping Agency's own document on the subject... --Cybercobra (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Jesus wept.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons spelled out by User:Cybercobra. However, those reasons do not seem to be among those justifying a Speedy Keep.  John M Baker (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Topic and content are appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  --the copyright is now compatible at long last. DGG (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2009 (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.