Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in the Food Industry


 * 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. –MuZemike 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mixing in the Food Industry

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Possible copyright violation, needs a better title. This information should probably be rewritten and added to articles like Mixing_(process_engineering) or others. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * comment: See afd for similar articles by the same author: Articles for deletion/Mixing in Consumer Products (outcome: delete) ErikHaugen (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G12 per identical AfD on similar articles by the same author. The author, TheodoreNg, has admitted the following about these articles: "I am new to wikipedia and am unsure of what is wrong with these articles. These articles were given to me by my supervisor and they are our property. The articles were written by the students of my supervisors and is entirely our work."  The author clearly doesn't understand the copyright policies of WP.     talk 18:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but he wasn't talking about this article. Obviously I think you are right that this is a copyright violation, but I can't be sure as in G12 sure. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete . These articles, as revealed in the other AfD discussion, are copyright violations; the text is apparently owned by an unidentified business who gave it to be posted on Wikipedia while still claiming it's their "property".  In the absence of a clearer intent to license this text under a compatible license, it's gotta go.  Which is a shame, because this and the other article did in fact contain interesting general information about industrial processes that wants mostly an encyclopedic lede and title. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate. If this is indeed a class project and we can get confirmation that both the professor and all her students who contributed actually intended to edit Wikipedia and licence these texts freely, there ought to be something that can be done to preserve them.  The problem is that as an overview, after the first paragraph or two, this is rather scattershot as an article; but individual sections may well be valuable contributions to articles such as emulsion.  We should keep the text somewhere and look for articles that this information can be added to. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject to copyright resolution Really it's up to the author and owner of the related IP. They're clearly not familiar with WP, and the implications of the GFDL under which text is required to be contributed. If they become familiar with these and then decide to gift this text under the GFDL, there's no problem. That decision is a matter for them, not for us. If they decide not to, or there isn't a timely response and decision, then obviously it has to go. As the original uploader was the current copyright holder's agent anyway, I see no need for any hasty or speedy action here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is author really an agent authorized to change the organization's copyright licenses? I don't think we know that. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "author" here? Original author, or WP editor? For most UK universities, copyright would most likely reside with the university by now, not with the original authors. If the WP editor is acting with authority as the university's agent, they could certainly choose to submit this under the GFDL, as needed. Possibly moral rights (i.e. individual traceability of authorship, even without copyright) could be an issue if they were a French university, but I don't think that applies here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the WP editor. But yeah, that's my point - I don't think we know or even have any reason to think that the WP editor is acting with authority as the university's agent. See the thing Tim Song linked to below - I sure hope this can get cleared up so we can keep all this stuff. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would seem like the sort of issue that OTRS is set up to deal with. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this seems to be a Canadian university. Tim Song (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete WP:HOWTO, WP:COPYVIO and "ownership" issues ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We can copyedit the WP:HOWTO problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But the article needs to be at least moved to a better title and this one deleted. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bwilkins.  — fetch ·  comms   20:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The copyright situation here is a bit complicated. Please see this. Tim Song (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining to them what's going on and how it could be fixed. Someoneanother 07:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. It looks to me more like a sincere yet misguided attempt by a university group at contributing to Wikipedia.  I suspect that the copyright issues could be sorted out, but the underlying material is still not really right for Wikipedia.  Wikisource or wikihow might be more suitable. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral The copyright business is over my head, but the subject itself seems very relevant, just specialist. :| I'm strongly in favour of keeping the content, but support whatever action is necessary to avoid problems with copyright. Not much help I know. Someoneanother 07:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is completely unclear that this material is properly licensed, and it is not at all clear that the contributing editor has the authority to place this material under an acceptable license. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2010 (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.