Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DFR(RAAF)




 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DFR(RAAF)
This userpage is a copy of Royal Australian Air Force Pilot, which was one in a series of job ads created by this uset and deleted via WP:prod (A article with similar content and formatting, by a different user, was more recently deleted after an AfD discussion).

I believe that this userpage should be deleted as it violates Wikipedia policies regarding advertising and promotion, and sections appear to be copied from the Defence Force Recruiting webpage advertising jobs as Pilots, and relevant subpages, which may breach copyright which may be copyright violations. -- saberwyn 07:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Userspace does not require the same standards as are needed to survive an AfD. There is no commercial advertizing here. I do not see any copyvio (reciting of facts is different in form and phrasing from the cite given).  Absent a reason to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One example of direct copying from the userpage
 * Upon joining the Royal Australian Air Force as a Pilot, Direct Entry Officers will normally undertake the Initial Officer Course of 16 weeks duration. This is a live-in course completed at RAAF Base East Sale, located 220 kilometres east of Melbourne (VIC).This course involves introduction to military life, Air Force values and attitudes, ground defence and weapons training, leadership and personal development, communication skills and Air Force operations studies.
 * From the Military Training subpage
 * Immediately upon joining the Air Force, direct entry officers will normally undertake the Initial Officer Course of 16 weeks duration. This is a live-in course completed at RAAF Base East Sale, located 220 kilometres east of Melbourne (VIC).
 * The major elements of the course involve introduction to military life, Air Force Values and attitudes, Ground Defence and Weapons training, Leadership and Personal Development, Communication Skills and Air Force Operations studies.
 * I'm fairly sure (but not certain, IANAL) that copying a copyrighted website this closely is a copyright violation. The entire 'training' section is either a direct copy, or slightly reworded in similar ways to the above example, of sections from the Military Training and Employment Training pages. The first sentance of 'qualifications' is a direct copy of the first sentance of the 'Australian Defence Force Academy' section of Education Requirements. There may be others I haven't found yet. -- saberwyn 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyvio requires more than simple English recitation of facts. Indeed, "rewording" is a cure for such an accusation. Further, the Australian Government does not assert copyright where the dissemination is not done with intent to deceive.   In short, not a copyvio.  Any more than quoting "All the news that's fit to print" is a copyvio for the NYT.   In addition, note the WP position that up to a couple of paragraphs may be quoted exactly. Here there is not such amount of exact quote at all.  Also note the common law precept that simple facts can not be copyrighted.  "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" can not be copyrighted, etc.  The material is a recitation of fact, possibly derived from official sources, but such facts are not susceptible to copyright in the first place. Hence - a non-issue for consideration here. Collect (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Copying whole sentences of a copyrighted work and maybe swapping a couple words and presenting them as article text would absolutely be a copyright violation. Our non-free content criteria only allows brief verbatim textual excerpts.  Swapping a couple words around creates a derived work, which would be prohibited by our policies as an improper use of copyrighted material.  As well, I believe that you are wrong about works of the Australian Government... they would fall under Crown Copyright and therefore would not be allowed in our article text.  The fact that the Australian government has vowed not to enforce their copyright against certain uses is irrelevant.  Our mission here is free content, and our copyright policies exceed what is allowed under the law.  Gigs (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where a simple recitation of facts is copyright? BTW, the shifts in wording appear more than minimal here.   And at that point, it should be at the copyvio noticeboard - not MfD, no? Collect (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Facts are not copyrightable, I never said they were. Copying sentences and changing a couple words is still a violation.  What would Copyright problems do with this?  They deal in infringing articles.  If anything, we should just speedy delete this rather than dragging out this pointless discussion about a copyright infringing article that the community already deleted once. Gigs (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite what's claimed above, the Australian Government normally very strongly asserts copyright on its websites and other publications - the website in question here is no exception - the material can only be reproduced in certain contexts and where it is not changed - Wikipedia clearly does not meet these criteria. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete copyright violation, not related to the encyclopedia in any way. Gigs (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per User page even if there are no problems with copyright:
 * "Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project."
 * This userpage violates every single sentence in that quote, which happens to be the introduction to the user page guideline. Its content is neither part of any "efforts to contribute to the project" nor in any related to Wikipedia, and its presence here is an example of using Wikipedia as a general hosting service. It is, quite simply, a copy-pasted (and somewhat modified) job ad posted by a user whose only other contributions have been similar job ads posted in the mainspace: . While I agree that editors should have fairly wide discretion concerning the type of material that is present on their user pages, I do make a distinction between "editor" or "participant" (to borrow the wording of User page) and "user". –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 20:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Copyvio and not an appropriate use for user space. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (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.