- Draft:List of Delta DM-19 launches (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This article was deleted under G12 for a copyright violation from http://www.papercraftsquare.com/rocket-paper-craft-thor-delta-no-11-dm-19-launcher-of-telstar-1-free-download.html. Actually that site was a Wikipedia mirror that was mirroring the article Thor-Delta. This article copyied text (with an attribution on the talk page) from Thor-Delta. 100.2.238.109 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning overturn on this one. The date of publication at paperscraftsqure.com isn't clear, but the page has a 2017 copyright notice. Our 2016 version of Thor-Delta includes the text in question.[1] Based on that, I agree with the assessment that the site mirrored us. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can you overturn and also review it?
- Overturn per C.Fred's analysis, which I AGF is correct, and if that's not good enough, could someone be kind enough to temp undelete it so I can see for myself? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Could an admin see if the G12 deletion was valid? Maybe I'm missing something, but the draft (only focusing on the draft, not the Thor-Delta article) was created and deleted in 2021 while the article seems to be from 2017 at least. Also, I note that the website's DMCA/copyright page here mention nothing about freely releasing any of their content under any free licenses, and in fact the disclaimer says all rights are reserved to their respective owners. --MuZemike 03:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The source site has had the same text since at least 8 December 2015. I haven't looked at our articles' histories yet. —Cryptic 03:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thor-Delta has had close to the same text since its first edit in 2009, and had identical text to the purported source site from 22:42, 21 May 2011 to 10:51, 15 April 2016. (The last two paragraphs, excluding the prosified download links, are from our Telstar article.) This is plainly reverse infringement. Overturn. —Cryptic 04:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if the draft is close to the Thor-Delta article, do I then presume we probably have a valid case to merge the content into Thor-Delta? (Knowing it's out-of-scope of this DRV, but worth mentioning, and a merge wouldn't be too difficult.) I'm not seeing a purpose of having a mainspace article and a draft that differ only from a couple different things. --MuZemike 04:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, if I reviewed drafts regularly, I'd have declined as merge into Thor-Delta instead. But there's no harm in waiting to see what its author (the IP above) would have done with it. —Cryptic 04:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Draft temporarily undeleted — I know we don't normally temp-undelete copyright violations, but in this case, given whether it is a copyright violation or not is the exact crux of the speedy delete issue, going to ignore that rule and undelete for viewing in these circumstances. Daniel (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm the deleting admin, and although I normally check for mirror sites, I do occasionally miss them, and I'm fine with overturning the deletion if that's the consensus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The attribution to Thor-Delta was on the talk page, so the talk page should also be temporarily restored. Also, there should not be a merge as this article appears to be an attempted split, which may be useful for users looking for a more specific list of launches.
- Overturn the alleged source site is blatantly copying Wikipedia for its descriptions, e.g. [2] is copied from Sikorsky R-4, [3] is copied from Space Shuttle Endeavour, [4] is from Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender, etc. This is clearly reverse infringement. Hut 8.5 11:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Seems like a reasonable error. But it is now understood to be an error, so the speedy should be overturned. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Hobit's point is well taken: this is a tough area to process well, and often requires a spreadsheet and some detective work! The scrutiny applied here should not be taken by Jimfbleak as criticism of the efforts made to look into this appropriately--keeping Wikipedia legal is an appropriately higher priority than settling debates over notability. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|