Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Air News

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 was Delete.. CitiCat ^♫ 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Air News

Scottish Air News (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was marked as being a possible copy/paste, and being unencyclopaedic in tone. Another editor marked it for speedy with the reason "appears to be unencyclopaedic in content" which I was concerned about, as the quality of the content is not a speedy criteria. I am therefore starting this discussion to allow for wider debate. In my opinion, it's not notable enough to warrant inclusion, as the magazine of a regional aviation group - possibly a mention in the article about the group itself would suffice. Chrisd87 09:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - From their site, it is published by "Central Scotland Aviation Group" and I really don't think this is notable. Will change my mind if anyone can provide sources that show notability Corpx 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (provisionally) - There's less notable articles on Wikipedia! This one is obviously young (less than two days, IIRC), and should at least be given a chance at improvement. Has anyone verified that it IS a copy/paste? All I have seen is "appears to be", and that shouldn't be enough justification. YES, it absolutely needs to be trimmed down. It needs some changes in tone and whatnot. Still, it is no worse than many other Wiki articles. Give it time. If it goes untouched for weeks, then perhaps, but so long as it is changing and improving daily, it ought be retained. VigilancePrime 04:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest you have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Addhoc 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm familiar with the policy, and I don't mean to imply that the sole reason it should be kept is because there is worse. My point is that the article is being developed, and Wikipedia needs to allow articles to develop. Other articles develop and that's great. Yes, by itself a "here's an article that is the same" is not enough, but there is still the precedant of giving a lesser-known topic an opportunity to build an article. An argument for deletion is justified, but a Speedy Deletion? Come on, now. That's pushing the limits of WP:NPOV almost! The article, since being tagged, has developed a "see also" and a "references" section, and the primary complaint (and the only one used as justification for the speedy delete), that of being a copy/paste job, is being corrected. For that matter, there is still no evidenced basis for an allegation of "cut/paste" other than a cursory read. I agree that it reads like a cut/paste, but someone needs to demonstrate that, I believe, before it can (should) be used as the sole criteria for deletion. VigilancePrime 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Another note, taking a random lead line from the article found no matching pages to back up the copy/paste allegation. View/recreate the search here. VigilancePrime 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • This article does not qualify for Speedy Deletion. From the Speedy Deletion page:

Blatant copyright infringement which meets all of these parameters:

The material was copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia (for images, examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers);

There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving (if worthwhile non-infringing content exists, then delete the article and attempt to restore it up to the version before the copyright violation was added - this parameter does not apply to images);

The material was introduced at once by a single person (be aware of the possibility that Wikipedia's copy of the material was created organically on wiki, and the other website's copy was obtained from Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - this parameter does not apply to images).

Uploader does not assert permission or fair use, or the assertion is questionable (for images: no assertion aside from tags);

Uploader does not assert the content or image is public domain or was released under a free license (note: many commercial image sources sell copies of free images).

Accordingly, as shown above (and again here), this is not copied from another webpage. Speedy Deletion requires all of the above to be met, and failing that first criteria negates this entire vote. None of the other Speedy Delete types apply. VigilancePrime 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from Nominator For the record, I was not alleging a copy/paste, I merely stated in my nomination that someone else had tagged it as such (and I've notified that editor about this discussion). I agree with it not being a speedy deletion candidate, and my original nomination was intended to allow for a more open and full discussion following another editor's suggestion that it be speedied for "unencyclopaedic content" (which is obviously not a speedy criterion). My view is to delete as non-notable, but as with Corpx above, I will happily change my mind if notability can be shown. Chrisd87 13:33, 15 August 2007 (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.