Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Gemayel

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

The result of the debate was - kept

Pierre_Gemayel

The page was copied word to word from a propaganda website. It is not fit to be in an encyclopedia, because it is propaganda, and because it is copied from external websites.

1. No potential to become encyclopedic
2. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic
3. Article is possible copyright infringement

Addoula 16:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• He was actually the founder of an important political party in Lebanon, correct? I don't se how that's un-encyclopedic. Likewise, It's not a "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic", seeing that the topic is discussed in the article and seems to be notable. Copyright issues are dealt with, not deleted. Keep, send to cleanup if you have that much of a problem with the wording after copyrights are dealt with. [1] this is that same topic, correct? hfool 17:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• This page is unfit to be here, if a copyvio (especially one from a Phalangist website.) However, a page on the topic should certainly be written. - Mustafaa 17:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, it's the copyvio, but the subject is way notable. Wyss 00:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Rewrite: I'll do it myself if nobody else is willing. Gemayel was not only the founder of a major political party which played a key role in the Lebanese Civil War, but held cabinet office for many years, was twice a candidate for the presidency, and influence was considerable. At the time of his death, he was regarded as more powerful than his son, Amine Gemayel, who was the president.

The original text was a copyvio. User:Morwen deleted it, and rightly so. I tried to rewrite it to make it more original and less POV. I thought I had done a creditable job, but if the rest of you don't think so, it's best deleted and rewritten from scratch. David Cannon 08:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks as if Morwen marked it as a copyvio, but the mark was then removed by an anon and not restored: [2]. - Mustafaa 11:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I could be entirely mistaken. I know that I uploaded something I copied; I intended to rewrite it, and (until now) I sincerely believed that I had done so. I may have overlooked it. (Uploading something in order to rewrite it is something I wouldn't dare do now, but I was a newbie to wikipedia at that time). If it is the case that it's a copyvio, then I'd say that the article in its current form is best deleted, allowing either me or some other interested person to write a new article from scratch. David Cannon 12:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and heavily rewrite - Skysmith 08:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I accept that I made a big mistake. I honestly believed that I had rewritten the article - I know that I fully intended to do so when I uploaded the text: I intended to use it as my source material, which I would selectively put into my own words. I thought I had done so, and didn't bother to check. I wouldn't dare do it that way now - but I was new to Wikipedia at the time. Problem: if I (or somebody else) rewrites the article, the edit history will still contain the copyvio, so I've taken the liberty of deleting the whole thing and starting again from scratch. (If anybody objects, I can undelete it later, but I think this was the best course to take). David Cannon 09:21, 29 Dec 2004 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.