Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Oregon rowing team


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a potential future renomination. However it does not appear that there is any inclination towards outright deletion. To the extent that there may be some favoring a merge that discussion can occur on the appropriate article talk page(s). Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

University of Oregon rowing team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Repeat from the talk page: This article is almost totally plagiarized from this Thesis June 2015 by Trevor Mathwick. The UofO description is ON THIS PAGE. I was going to remove the offending text but that got silly since it would remove 85% of the article. Correcting this is beyond my current set of editing skills.

The user that created the page, interestingly, did so on December 18, 2014 six months before the date of the publication. So either the document was stolen and posted or the author plagiarized himself before turning in his theisis for his degree?? Additionally...
 * 14:55, 19 January 2015 Valfontis (talk | contribs) blocked Roworegon (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled)  --->  Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep: I have removed the text that violated copyright. The article still needs editing, but at least it is not a blatant violation. Earwig's analysis yields 99.1% confidence of copyvio. (Earwig was running inconsistently, however, and the scholarsbank.uoregon.edu site took too long to respond the first time I ran it.) There does not appear to be any way to salvage this article in its current state, short of contacting the author of the dissertation that is the source for this copyvio to ask for a declaration of public domain or CC-by-SA copyright license. WP:TNT may seem harsh, but WP policy is clear on the subject of copyvio, with good reason. Even though it's a club sport, rowing probably deserves its own article, but one that summarizes and paraphrases reliable sources appropriately. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Earwig still reports 95.6% confidence of copyvio, but the problem text is virtually all properly quoted material from news sources. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Either delete because of copyvio or just STUBIFY. I'm sure the topic is indeed notable. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene left a comment at WT:ORE about the old copyvio revisions. I'm happy to delete revisions that introduced copyvio's. On a quick look, it appears to me that the revisions in question were by in Jan. 2015 Special:Diff/643166539/643188712. Is that accurate? For what it's worth, it's good to catch these things as early as possible, since deleting the revisions now will make for rather confusing diffs going forward. There have been a LOT of edits in the interim. Not the end of the world, but not ideal. Feel free to ping me for this kind of thing in the future. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, I found evidence of copyvio a month earlier, @ this diff. As you point out, there have been many edits by other editors in good faith. What a mess. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your efforts. I've now suppressed about 75 early revisions, up to the first substantive edits by others. I'm happy to continue, but want to proceed with caution in such a complex scenario. Please let me know (anybody) if you have ideas on how to best go about it. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination per se, except for vague, non-policy-based preferences based on being a UO alum myself.   For future nominations, please carefully and fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO.  Thanks.  --Finngall talk  14:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  15:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  15:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- copyvio issues aside, I don't see how this meets WP:ORG. In particular the sourcing fails WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article now has only local sources, it's true, but there are national and international sources which can be summarized and used to develop the article. The following sources had been plagiarised and had been removed:


 * "Girl Coxswain Stirs Controversy" (Page E8). Palm Beach Post-Times. 16 April 1972. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
 * "Coed Makes Waves for Crew". The Milwaukee Journal. 18 April 1972. p. 10. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
 * Moore, Kenny (April 1972). "Case of the Ineligible Bachelorette". Sports Illustrated: n.p. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
 * Solemn, Karen, ed. (1997). American Rowers Almanac 1997. Ray Richard Solem. p. 246. ISBN 0965132714. OL 11733133M – via American Rowers Almanac, Inc.
 * "Wisconsin Women's Rowing: History and Highlights". University of Wisconsin. p. 2. Retrieved 5 September 2014.
 * "U.S. Team Boating - Men 1980-1999: 1993 World Championships & 1994 World Championships". Friends of Rowing History. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
 * "1994 Results". Head of the Charles. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
 * "Gold medals shared at under-23 championships". World Rowing. 17 July 2012. Retrieved 7 September 2014.
 * "2011 ACRA Regatta Results". ACRA. 2011. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
 * "2012 ACRA Regatta Results". ACRA. 2012. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
 * "2013 Results". Head of the Lake. 4 November 2013. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
 * "2014 ACRA Regatta Results". ACRA. 2014. Retrieved 6 September 2014.
 * Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge with University of Oregon. The team itself isn't notable but there's substantial content on the page which is encyclopedic and useful.  StraussInTheHouse (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * (Post relist comment to StraussInTheHouse)) - It seems odd for you to say "the team itself isn't notable" while linking to WP:NOPAGE where the first line is "When creating new content about a notable topic". NOPAGE is choosing not to use a separate article, even when there is notability.
 * I'm inclined to think that the article is notable, and I'm positive that it is a substantive enough topic that it only makes sense to merge it if it would otherwise be a delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your comment. Sorry, I should have made myself clearer, by linking WP:NOPAGE, I wasn't referring just to the first line, I was referring to the overall idea of something being eligible to be mentioned as a subsection of an article but not being notable enough nor having a parent page long enough to warrant a content fork or a standalone page.  In other words, the team is notable for inclusion as a section in the University of Oregon's page but it is not notable in that it is merely a part of the University of Oregon and hasn't had enough sustained, independent coverage to warrant a separate article.  I hope that makes more sense?  Thanks, StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I get what you mean, I feel that is more WP:NOTEWORTHY but I see your argument. Not that I agree with it, of course, that would be too easy. I'm inclined to think it does meet article notability requirements, though I'm not yet positive enough of that (since we are now so local, source-wise) to confirm my !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful if further discussion focused on whether a separate page is warranted, or whether the University athletics page is sufficient.
 * Keep I see no reason why an article of this size should be merged. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Surprising this is even discussed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue that brought this article to AFD was copyvio, which led to deletion of text sourced to national news sources. I added a few details that support notability of the program, and there are still more sources from the copyvio version (see my earlier comment above) that also could be used to develop the article. Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It isn't a copyvio if the same person initially created the article under an irrevocable free license and later submitted a thesis which included the text of the article. This involves fewer assumptions than the text being stolen or uploaded by a third party. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems fine as it is, appears to be have been cleaned, and well-sourced. Hzh (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: (1) I would argue against a merge at this point, because the sources as they stand meet GNG. The team has competed annually at the American Collegiate Rowing Association national championships, and individual athletes have made the ACRA All-American lists. The article is also quite lengthy, and in my opinion has enough encyclopedic detail and national sources to stand on its own. In addition, the University_of_Oregon is currently not abour club sports, but only about UO NCAA athletic teams, as is the separate article, Oregon Ducks. (2) Addressing comments by : the creator of the article,, did not leave any evidence of an irrevocable free license before his account was blocked, and despite my efforts to reach him by e-mail through either "Email this user" or through an e-mail address I found by Googling Trevor Mathwick, I have had no response regarding making such a declaration. There is, however, a declaration on the UO Library archive page that the thesis upon which the original article was based has a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, not acceptable for our purposes. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.