Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VCs of the First World War - The Somme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio CDC (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a book review which is inherently POV. Probably a plug as well. Andypasto 09:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as promotion. Rewrite as article if book is actually notable. Mgm|(talk) 09:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I would highly encourage a rewrite - This has been on the top of the most linked to articles without an article list for a very long time. Lotsofissues 11:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment This appears to be CopyVio. I have added a notice to the page and blanked it. I believe that a CopyVio means that a page should be blanked even if it is up for VFD (if this is not correct policy then please correct). Cheers. TigerShark 11:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct. Copyvio trumps VfD. Note that we may decide to delete it anyway even if it turns out not to be copyvio. Radiant_* 14:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Why, exactly, is it one of the most linked articles? I'll bet it because one person has made a ton of articles linking to this one. What if all of those articles are copyvio's too? -- 8^D gab 16:57, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
- Aaaargh. So I randomly picked one of the articles linking to this one - David Jones (VC) - and of course it is indeed a copyvio (although only a paragraph of it). -- 8^D gab 17:20, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
- Articles from victoriacross.net have been migrated to Wikipedia. That's why at the bottom of every one it says "This page has been migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference (http://www.victoriacross.net) with permission." and that's why when you go to victoriacross.net it says "The Victoria Cross Reference is migrating its content to Wikipedia - you can help" at the top. I don't know whether the victoriacross.net owner planned to migrate non-VC recipient articles as well, like book reviews. Geoff/Gsl 22:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Aaaargh. So I randomly picked one of the articles linking to this one - David Jones (VC) - and of course it is indeed a copyvio (although only a paragraph of it). -- 8^D gab 17:20, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
- Why, exactly, is it one of the most linked articles? I'll bet it because one person has made a ton of articles linking to this one. What if all of those articles are copyvio's too? -- 8^D gab 16:57, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
- You are correct. Copyvio trumps VfD. Note that we may decide to delete it anyway even if it turns out not to be copyvio. Radiant_* 14:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- The recipients of the Victoria Cross can be very notable without this particular book making the cut at all. This book has two Amazon sales rankings that I could find, the better of which was worse than 1,500,000. There is no evidence that this is a notable book. Delete the article about the book and unlink it in all the recipient articles. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Rewrite, Keep. I noticed that the reason the book is linked in each of the 40+ articles which reference it is that it is listed as a source for each of them. Conceivably, someone interested in WWI VC recipients might like to know about the book which purports to discuss all of them. Besides, Wikipedia is not paper, and a book can be notable and at the same time have a very specialized audience. -- 8^D gab 03:38, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
- Delete, as MacGyverMagic puts it --Mecanismo 21:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.