Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 September 19

19 September 2017

 * Compressed Gas Association ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.cganet.com/about.php. Rhadow (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article., I can't see any significant overlap between any version of our article and the source you've mentioned. Have I missed something obvious? Certainly the content added with shows every sign of having been copied, but I've not been able to identify any source that it might have been taken from. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers -- the following is character for character the same: "Since 1913, the Compressed Gas Association has been dedicated to ... More than 1[2]0 member companies ..." and so on. For this line, "In January 1913, Robert King sent a letter to the 75 manufacturers of compressed gases in the United States inviting them to attend a meeting in New York City for the purpose of organizing a new industry association:" see http://www.cganet.com/docs/100th.pdf page 14. Q.E.D. Rhadow (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . As you'll have seen, I removed most of the text there as completely unsourced. I did see the overlap between the "about" page and the content added with ; however, most of that passage seems to have been original content (or adequately rephrased) and Earwig's tool gives me such a low percentage that I did not feel that revdeletion was justified. I'm much more concerned about the large edit in 2008, which includes the stuff about Robert King's letter; however, that pre-dates the 100th anniversary publication (which I did also check, btw) by about five years, so wherever it came from I don't think it was there. I've left a cv-unsure template on the talk-page. Is that sufficient for now, do you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Justlettersandnumbers -- Now that the article is pared to a stub, the question is whether a $3 million trade organization is notable. By virtue of its age, it probably is. CGA publications support DOT standards for tanks and material handling; that's valuable. The hundredth anniversary book was probably cobbled together from the fiftieth anniversary book - text lying around the CGA offices. I have a hunch the article was originally all SPA promo from the WP days no one prosecuted these things. When I get around to it, I'll write a couple of paragraphs. We can see then if CGA stands up to notability scrutiny... or you can. Rhadow (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)