Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transforming “victimhood” to peacemaking agencies


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Transforming “victimhood” to peacemaking agencies
I incorrectly marked this as a speedy delete for Original Research (thanks OwenX!), so I bring this here. This is an essay, original research and I suspect a possible copyvio. Wildthing61476 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Fabricationary 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, who could also have added "opinion piece" to the list. Agent 86 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment did I forget to mention POV article? :) Wildthing61476 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's even signed by it's author. Artw 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I strongly suspect this is a copyvio, as the author's name doesn't match username, but I couldn't find this thing with a few moments of googling. Might have been copied off of a print source. It's not encyclopedia material at all, though... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The authors name certainly doesnt match the username, because the two are entirely different. If you had taken the trouble of actually contacting either the author or hte username, you would realize that I (dipenda) am the Director, Programs at the Alliance for Peace-Nepal, and that we are working to enable and empower the youth in Nepal.  One of the things we do is write up articles, and try and publicize it.  If writing our own articles and submitting them to various websites constitutes a violation of copyright laws, then perhaps i need to study copyright laws properly.  Sorry if thats the case.   dipenda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by dipenda (talk • contribs).
 * Sorry, we tend to be very paranoid what comes to copyright and licencing, and I for one had no idea and you have to admit the name didn't look like an acronym or anything, and you didn't even have an user page. (Organisations rarely just walk up and contribute something. Usually, when you see a copy-paste posting like this, it's more likely to be work of a random, unrelated, well-intentioned party who isn't aware of Wikipedia's licencing issues.) So apologies. Either way, there's possibility of copyright violation here, still: You're merely the publisher, not the author; has the author assigned the copyright of the article to you? If not, I sure hope they're aware of the fact that their work is distributed under GFDL, know exactly what it means, and they approve of it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:02, 26 July 2006 (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.