Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mhughesnd/Immaculate Conception School (Rio Grande City)




 * 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 per Speedy G12 Blatant Copyright Violations - even if it wasn't very speedy, a GFDL violation is a copyright violation and this one was blatant. The clearest way to violate the GFDL within Wikipedia is to cut and paste. Blanking would not be sufficient and is not supported by policy in copyvio cases. Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mhughesnd/Immaculate Conception School (Rio Grande City)
Created on 10 May 2009, no further development has taken place in the ensuing five months, and thus it appears to be contrary to WP:UP. Author is apparently inactive on en-wiki since then and has not responded to my Sept. 7 note on his talk page about it  JGHowes   talk  00:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank so the user can unblank on his return if it is not suitable for mainspace, or Move to mainspace if it is.  There are not time limits, and we should delete works in progress due to users having other committments.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to say, "...we should not delete works in progess..."? But 95% of the content (and image) is pasted from Calvert Hall College High School in Baltimore, Maryland. There are also BLP issues to consider – the "Notable alumni" list is bogus, all of whom attended the Baltimore high school, not this one. Besides, an elementary school ain't gonna be notable, so this wouldn't fly in namespace, anyway.  JGHowes   talk  17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, that' what I meant.
 * OK, this page is a bit weird, like a creation of a new school article using another as a template, but with very little effort made to remove the previous content.  Delete due to it being misleading/confusing and abandoned.  (Could've just been blanked).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 15 October 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.