Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shajar


 * 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   redirect to Augite. As has correctly been noted by others below, the content has been merged and keeping the history intact is required for attribution per our various copyright policies. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Shajar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unreferenced. Tagged for notability for over three years. Orphan as well. Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also known as "shazar". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As per links given by User Phil Bridger. I have added in-line citations and references to improve the article. Jethwarp (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep my vote after adding ref and citation is keep Jethwarp (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, Merge the content to Augite as this has information about them. In fact I think I will go ahead and add the info the the Augites article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That (delete and merge) seems like a thoughtful suggestion. The two articles are each in their own right so short, and this (w/new ref supplied) apparently being a subset of Augite. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. Based on the below discussion, I think that pure "Delete" rather than "Delete and Merge" is the better nomenclature, inasmuch as there is nothing left to "merge".  At the same time, I believe a redirect would make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would urge those calling for deletion after merging to read and digest WP:MAD. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was focused on the end result, but since from the essay (not a guideline I see, and I've not looked at the guideline it supplements) Phil points to, it would seem that "delete" (Richard's suggestion, and my original suggestion) and "redirect" would entail less work for the closing admin. And nothing important would be lost I would think.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment : If article is not kept - it should be Merged and Redirected to Augite for attribution purpose. I feel Richard of Earth has been bold to add whole Shajar article to Augite section - thinking it will be deleted. As far as I have seen most Admins are very strict and generally merge history with the article page for attribution purpose, as per Wiki guidelines.Jethwarp (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Richard was seeking to save content that, with added refs, is valid content, whether or not it is sufficiently notable to deserve a wp article. I don't think there is any reason to chastise him for that; precisely the opposite.  And the "whole" article he added was quite small, of course.  As to which approach to take -- merge or redirect -- the essay, at least, seems to present them both as alternatives.  I don't see anything especially valuable in the history, so I'm not sure what the value is of saving it.  But other than as an intellectual issue, it seems to be a non-issue, of little importance, in this case at least.  I can see why in other cases, such as ones with robust talk page discussion on issues that continue, we might have a different view.  That isn't the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The value of saving the history is that it is necessary to do so to comply with our copyright licence when any content has been merged. This is a legal requirement, not a matter of opinion as to whether any individual editor sees any value in it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point. As the non-guideline essay states, "A vote for delete and recreate as redirect is unrelated, and presents no problems under the licensing requirements. As long as no content is merged, the old article can be safely deleted and a redirect created in its place."  At this point, there is nothing more to merge -- all the information we have in the "merge to" article is already created there, in total conformance with our copyright license.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the content in the target article was copied from the one under discussion here, so we need to maintain attribution to the original authors. If we delete this article's history then it will look like Richard-of-Earth wrote the content merged to Augite, when he didn't, but only copied it from Shajar. Pleased don't keep going on about WP:MAD being only an essay. It is firmly based on the fundamental policy requirements of our licence. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the essay, I'll simply quote -- in full -- what the essay itself says about itself as an essay: "'While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Redirect. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.'"  As to what an essay is, I'll quote from the relevant page:  "'On Wikipedia, an essay is a page in the project namespace (Wikipedia:) that is written by one or more editors that typically addresses some aspect of working on or with Wikipedia. Such pages are categorized into Category:Wikipedia essays or a related subcategory. Essays may range from personal or minority views, to views that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. Essays typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Unlike policies and guidelines, usually no formal attempt to judge the community's support for the essay's content has been made.'"  As to merging -- as I said, at this point there is no content to merge, upon deletion of the article.  But of course if sysops want to do the extra work of adding the history of the article, they are free to do that.  Whether there is a legal requirement that they do so it the opinion of Phil, but I personally don't see that in the least.  If that were the case, all those who have used wikipedia entries elsewhere based on the (soon-to-be-deleted) article here would be in breach of our copyvio laws ... that would require that anyone who uses wp as a source under our license daily check to see if the material is still undeleted.  I don't think there is any legal requirement for that, and I don't think that the world operates that way precisely because there is no such requirement.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I give up. If you're not prepared to learn that a fundamental requirement of our licence is attribution to original authors then please just continue in your ignorance, rather than making silly wikilawyering points about the status of an essay, when I have linked the licence, which, as a legal document, sits above even policy, above. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You raised the essay. Not me.  It was in fact your citing of, and linking to, the essay that kicked off this discussion above.  I simply clarified what an essay is for wp purposes.  Just as the essay itself does.  I'm not clear why that would trouble you.  This essay, in particular, is interesting in that only half a dozen editors have supplied more than 2 edits to it.  Beyond that, as to the law, we're simply discussing your interpretation and application of the license requirements.  I indicated why I thought your interpretation and application here -- where material has already been "moved" and there is nothing else to move, is not accurate.  But yes, I agree -- accurate interpretation and application of the law, as you say, does sit above policy.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a legal requirement to add the history and names of original creator & other contributors of page to be merged for attribution purpose. User Phil Bridger has been trying to explain that thing again and again, as was also pointed out by me in my earlier comment. In the current situation it looks as if User Richard on Earth  has written the Shajar section of Augite article, where as he has just copy and pasted it from the Shajar page. I am sure the Admin who will take this AfD for closure will look in to all this matter before taking his/her decision.Jethwarp (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, you're not reading what was written -- there is nothing left "to merge". Richard copied the couple of sentences into the target article already.  As he was completely in his rights to do; do you really think he needed an in-line attribution to wikipedia to do it?  I'm happy of course for the closing admin to do whatever the closing admin would like to do.  If they want to do extra work and add material that the law does not require -- if indeed it does not require it -- then they should of course feel free to do so.  I don't want them to be misled however by an essay written primarily by a handful of editors being thought of as anything more that that.  And I think the application of the law here is what is primarily at question in any event.  I'm simply explaining why Phil's understanding of the law seems to me (with all due deference to him if he is a U.S. lawyer) to be incorrect in its application here.  It may be that the two of you are U.S. lawyers, and even U.S. lawyers can disagree on matters of law (though in the U.S. we are generally against non-lawyers tendering opinions on the law), but my understanding is as set forth above.  As I said, this is a silly issue, for the obvious reasons.  If anyone has serious questions on this point, the closer included, they can of course have it communicated to the wikipedia foundation lawyer who handles such matters.  Certainly, getting legal issues of U.S. law into the hands of U.S. lawyers, and out of the hands of the non-U.S.-lawyers, would be likely to yield the best result.  Non-lawyers are often inordinately happy to construe the law, but that is a bit like doing brain surgery by consensus of wikipedia editors; it may perhaps not always yield the best result.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Richard has copied whole article which indicates that contents of article were not worth a delete but a merge. I think sole reason you are getting upset is that you had nominated it for delete and now arguing on behalf of Richard, who has just done big mistake in copy pasting the complete Sahjar page into Augite bcoz he thought the article is going to be deleted. Wow!! That is quiet an argument. Till now, Richard is silent in this matter and you are putting up all arguments becoz u are not aware how seriously Wikipedia takes the attribution for its licensing policy.  Now if the the article is worth delete, as per you and Richard, why did then he copy paste it on another page. In fact he himself admits  that he is taking a bold step, which as per me is a wrong step to get your name for an attribution. Jethwarp (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what Richard did was sensible. It's done.  There is nothing left to merge.  Richard kindly found a way to improve the project, by saving from complete deletion material that could be saved by the edits he made.  We should take our attribution license very seriously.  The only issue here is how to handle the history of the once-deleted article.  As I said, I think its a matter that the closing admin can decide, but I gave my opinion as to the views expressed above.  BTW, Jeth -- do you think that whenever material is copy-pasted from 1 wp article into another that attribution is required (and if we don't do that, what is the legal risk that wikipedia is incurring)?  And do you think that whenever we delete an article at AfD, wp or the closing admin conducts (or is required to conduct) a search for any material that may have been copy-pasted from 1 article into another (and if we don't do that, what is the legal risk that wikipedia is incurring by failing to do such a search)?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The question you are raising is separate and not to discussed at AfD. But I think Richard did it on purpose. See his comment, he voted a Delete and at the same time said I will merge the content. Instead he should have just voted or changed his vote to Merge & Redirect. You are in fact saying he did a good job obviously, aware that what he did was not correct. I am sure you are an experienced editor but due to some reasons, willingly saying that what he did was good and changed your vote accordingly to delete. Let us now wait for wisdom of closing Admin for decision. Jethwarp (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep on attributing motives to me. But I originally nominated this for deletion of the content.  When refs sufficient to save the content as part of another article were added (though not sufficient to warrant its own article), and the content was moved to another article, I applauded that move.  A move which resulted in the keeping of the content on wp.  Which is the opposite of what I had originally called for.
 * Let me repeat my 2 questions, because your answers will help me better understand your legal reasoning and analysis of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License insofar as it relates to this AfD. And what you opine, above, is a "legal requirement".  1) Do you think that whenever material is copy-pasted from 1 wp article into another, that attribution is required (and if we don't attribute, what do you believe is the legal risk that wp is incurring)?  2) And do you think that whenever we delete an article at AfD, wp or the closing admin conducts (or is required to conduct) a search for any material that may have been copy-pasted from 1 article into another (and if we don't do that, what is the legal risk that wikipedia is incurring by failing to do such a search)?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, certainly. Attribution is a central tenet of our licence, not some minor issue that's open to interpretation. The legal risk is minor, but we do things because they are right, not just to avoid getting sued. 2) Any material copy-pasted to other articles should have been identified in edit summaries, per WP:MERGE, so there should be no need for a deleting admin to conduct such an investigation. Of course, that procedure breaks down if editors refuse to listen when these things are explained to them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your missing a basic point, Phil. Nobody is arguing the importance of the issue.  Everyone accepts it.  What is under discussion is what the law in fact says.  That is an issue of how one construes what the law says.  On wikipedia, of course, people enter that conversation whether they are qualified to opine on US law or not; everyone gets to play lawyer, even a 12-year-old would be allowed to.  At the end of the day, foundation lawyers will provide input on any issues of importance, as they protect the project from liability, which is also a concern that I share as an editor.
 * One further clarification: If we copy from page A to page B, and at some future point in time delete page A, an edit summary on page B (which is what Phil focuses on in his above comment) will not be discoverable by the sysop deleting page A.  He has no reason to look at page B's edit summaries.  And AFAIK, there is no systemic way in which he checks all wp articles for copied text, when deleting an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict with the second paragraph above) If you can't understand the basic point that the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (my emphasis) requires attribution then I don't see how I can possibly get you to understand anything. That's not my lay interpretation, but the interpretation that has always been used on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As to your further question, please read the instructions for merging that I linked above you will see that "A comment in the edit summary must be made in the pages being merged as to where they are being merged to, and it must be noted in the parent page(s)' edit summary where the content from other pages are being merged from; this is done to preserve attribution under the Creative Commons Share-alike 3.0 license", where the "parent page" is your page A. If no other edits are being made to that page this can be done with a null edit. These issues were all worked out a decade ago, and are documented in places such as WP:MERGE and WP:MAD, with the expectation that editors would use common sense and not reject those documents because they don't have the word "policy" at the top. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! I didn't watch this page, so I had no idea you guys were having this looooooong conversation about my action.  None of which is needed for this deletion discussion.  The closing admin only needs your opinion on the article, not on any editors or their actions.  Most of this should be on the talk page. This discussion should be closed and a new one started at a later point that has none of this extra verbage. Or perhaps you guys (it seems to be just 3 of you) can agree to move it all to the talk page.  If you do, move this comment as well. If my editing was any problem, it could have been undone in a flash as I intended to do that if the article was kept. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't blame yourself! Jethwarp and I were trying to make the simple point that if content has been merged elsewhere then this title should be redirected with the history intact in order to maintain the attribution required by our licence. It seems that Epeefleche is unwilling to accept such advice unless it comes from a Wikimedia Foundation lawyer, although it is the way that merges have always been handled on Wikipedia (and we would need to hire many more very expensive lawyers if every copyright issue was referred to the Foundation). It's difficult to say at exactly which point the discussion became irrelevant to this article, so I think we need to leave it intact. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Augite, pretty obviously, as this is a valid search term and we need to maintain the history of the merged content. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2011 (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.