Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Cinémathèque


 * 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 speedy keep. The article still needs work, but the main rationale for deletion was copyright violation, which has now been resolved. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pacific Cinémathèque

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is largely plagiarised from the organisation's website (in particular #Film_Reference_Library etc.) and should, therefore, be deleted as a copyright violation ╟─ Treasury Tag ► First Secretary of State ─╢ 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  --Ckatz chat spy   16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; Pacific Cinémathèque is a notable part of Vancouver's cultural sector, currently approaching its 40th year. The society offers a range of programmes and services, hosts the West Coast Film Archives, and is involved with the Vancouver International Film Festival and the National Film Board of Canada. This is a new article; the users involved in writing it have already indicated a desire to work to resolve any copyright issues, and I intend to assist where possible. --Ckatz chat spy  16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not about whether or not the organisation is notable. I frankly don't care about whether or not the organisation is notable. This is about the fact that this article is plagiarised. Have you done anything to delete the copyrighted material, Ckatz, in the fourteen hours since you declined to speedy-delete this obvious copyvio? No you haven't. Why not, may I enquire? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► assemblyman ─╢ 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TreasuryTag, we don't automatically delete articles for being copyright violations. That's what the CP noticeboard is for; I will run through the article and attempt to clean it up.  ceran  thor 18:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Because COPYVIO clearly states, "If an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. 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." Now, it is really not my job to clear up others' mess, and I have no interest in the subject, so will not be re-writing it myself. Anyone is, of course, welcome to – just as was in the ~15 hours since they declined to delete the article. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Db-copyvio clearly states:"'This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution.'"The article in question does not meet that test, hence it was not speedy-deleted. --Ckatz chat spy  18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you done anything to delete the copyrighted material, Ckatz, in the fourteen hours since you declined to speedy-delete this obvious copyvio? No you haven't. Why not, may I enquire? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As it is universally agreed that WP:N is not a problem, and given that I excised the last remaining copyvio text from the article, there is no reason why this article has to be deleted. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As AFD has now forced cleanup and notability is pretty much a lock..  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:38, 7 July 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.