Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Saudis in USA Organization

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. MER-C 11:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Saudis in USA Organization


The author of this unreferenced draft has been blocked as a shared account for promotion. Unless someone is willing to "adopt" this draft and provide independent reliable sources within seven days, it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep . Good topic, but WP:TNT. Needs to be rewritten starting from independently sourced commentary.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree on points:
 * "this unreferenced draft" Draft is referenced.  It is just not referenced independently, which is a notability concern not a critical failing at draft stage.  As an organisation supporting all Saudi students studying the in the USA, I have little doubt that notability can be demonstrated.
 * "blocked as a shared account for promotion" looks unjustified. The blocking admin,, might care to explain the block better (certainly better than he explained at User_talk:Saudis_in_USA_Organization).  Are there deleted contributions justifying a promotion block?  The reviewable contributions don't.  I see a WP:BITE violation, including the aggressive usernameblock template used.
 * If blocked merely as an apparently intended shared account (my guess), that is not a real block, just a forced rename. (the method is unfortunate, being crude and confrontational, it better serves as an forced introduction to WP:SOCKING; the user is well advised to create a new, less-transparent account and to never connect to the blocked one).  Ideally, the editor (realistically, so for there is only one!) will create the account, with which he will be allowed to merrily continue editing, including editing of this draft.
 * The username is of an organization, and shared use, which is a clear violation of the username rules. On top of that, they wrote a draft for an article with the same name as the organization. This is promoting themselves. If they want to create a new individual account, (the blocking notice explains to them how to go about it), request help on writing a proper article, within the rules, and they can show the organization is notable, then they can follow that path. -- Alexf(talk) 13:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The username and the promotional tone can be fixed, these things do not require deletion of a draft of a notable organisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The draft covers a notable topic for which we have no article. There is no good reason to impose a seven day time limit on the addition of sourced material from independent sources.  The author should be encouraged to adopt the one-persons-one-account policy, including appearances, and to continue.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per G12: This is an unambiguous copyright violation. I have tagged it accordingly. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The author here is clearly the same author there (facebook, linkedin), and therefore is the copyright holder and is allowed to post his work.  The promotional aspects can be fixed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are correct, then that author must follow the instructions for WP:DCM before we allow them. This is standard practice with G12. If the page creator chooses not to go through the appropriate process. Besides, I think you're probably wrong in terms of copyright. It's very likely that, if the plagiarized text comes from the organization, the person who created the article was not given the authority to deed the copyright to that text. This is part of why we don't allow role accounts. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree abut the implied role account, but note that WP:BITING is occurring. In terms of copyright, I think you are taking facebook and LinkedIn too seriously, copyright concerns in cases like this are overblown.  I am confident that the author either owns the copyright, or is working with permission or instruction from the copyright holder.  The real issue is that the material needs to be based on other independent sources, and thus entirely rewritten.  It needs to be rewritten from first person plural to third person, for example.  Pointing the author to WP:DCM is not helpful in this regard.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, speedy got declined as deferring to MfD, which is a weird outcome. In any event, still delete as a copyvio as there's no OTRS indication that the author owns the wording and has the authority to post it. Copyright is a non-negotiable problem, and runs entirely contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia: That as much content as possible can be reused under a free license without worry that some copyright issue is going to fly out of left field. It harms the reputation of the project to let something like this slide because it shows a blasé attitude about copyright. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I dispute that it is a likely copyright violation, but more importantly note that the real question is "Is "Saudis in USA Organization" a possibly notable topic, and that if the answer is "yes", the content is to be rewritten anyway. In the short term, the page can be stubified to eliminate your concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TNT. The potential copyright violation needs to be nuked and the promotional tone necessitates a complete rewrite from someone not connected to the subject. clpo13(talk) 18:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio, COI, promo, stale, badly written and trout the editors that are in love with garbage. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a copyright violation. There is no evidence that this text has been released under a sufficiently free license.  I don't why Smokey Joe is so confident that it is.  For all we know, somebody in the organisation gave an intern some vague instructions like  "Raise our social media profile." and somebody started copying their press release everywhere.  And speaking of press releases, this draft is simply spam which would require a rewrite from scratch.  So copyvio + spam = double the reason to delete this draft.  Notability of the organisation is irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am confident because the facebook and LinkedIn material displays the same writing style, and because the intern would have the authority to do it. On other points made, I don't dispute them.  Probably WP:TNT is correct.  I did already note that the entire content needs rewriting.  However, I wish it noted that the topic is quite plausible notable, and could go to mainspace if only it could be built on third party sources.  The NOTPROMOTION issues here are not so strong.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That provides no proof whatsoever that the person has the organisational authority to release material under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Proof is a tough ask, but note that you have already convinced me and I already changed my !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.