Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Explosion at Faversham

Article The Great Explosion at Faversham listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

CONSENSUS REQUIRED 7 DAYS EXPIRED...Faedra 23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Above comment by Faedra copied and pasted from vfd mainspace Graham &#9786; | Talk 00:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Faedra listed this for VfD, but didn't leave a reason. Looks like it was manually copied from a book. I can't get any Google matches on the text. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) ''Addendum: This was originally on Votes for deletion/Old, but lacked consensus and thus has been moved back to VfD. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * (not a vote) Discussion on Talk:The Great Explosion at Faversham suggests Faedra believes it's a copyvio, but it was Faedra who uploaded it. We can't proceed - Faedra either needs to decide it's a copyvio, and list it on the appropriate page, or needs to come up with grounds why it should be deleted by the VfD process (where non-copyvio deletions are covered). -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 19:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It gets weird, now. Check out Faversham munitions disaster/temp.  Same user.  There's a copyright notice at the top of the page.  No Google hits, though.  For that matter, no wikis and lots of misspellings. - Lucky 6.9 23:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * There's some sort of copyright message on User:Faedra page that I don't quite get. Is he posting copyrighted material, and then working on de-violating it once its up?  Maybe he's putting up the copyright notice to let people know he's not finished???  Joyous 00:47, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * All no google hits means is that google's spiders have not found it, which should not be a surprise if it has never appeared on the web, which can be said to be true of practically all non-notable twentieth century works. I'm betting this is the work of a professional writer, and the material constitutes a copyvio, but because it was never electronically transliterated, who knows for sure? I'd like to say keep, because it's interesting and well-written, but my instinct says it's too clean to be true. I vote delete, and let's follow the debate. Denni &#9775; 06:55, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

The location of a website containing the source for the main body my wiki pages (at this time) resides temp. at my user page. Initially I had wished to remove some of my contributions as I saw them as superficial to an encyclopaedia, I have chosen to rework them because of positive feed back on this page, my copyright notices are self explanatory. I am a careless speller, and I am not a professional author, having not made a shilling on my work, which is why I was initially concerned for my copyright, hence the need to rework everything I have submitted before I continue with new material.

NB THIS PAGE: (VfD) URGENT: I find this page unwieldy, and hope someone can sub divide it into a page for each week or set up a frameset with shortcuts. This contrib. does not help in that regard, but I hope clarifies my desire to present the community with unproblematic content at the same time preserving my original content, still under construction, and with copyright problems unresolved. phew! Faedra 17:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a little less unwieldy if you put your comments on the Template page instead of using the section edit feature. Rossami

End discussion