Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Independence Model

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 Procedural close. user: Anthony Appleyard, you say you deleted the page, but the log says otherwise. If this is a blatant copyvio, then speedy delete it, or at least restore the speedy tag for someone else to deal with. If it is only suspected copyvio, list at WP:CP. If there is something else to this, a nomination with a clear rationale is required. SpinningSpark 03:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Oops sorry. I was intending to delete it after the rest of the procedure, but the situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 during the deletion procedure I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Independence Model

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Riclas, DESiegel, and Gaspanic99: Queried speedy delete as copyvio of https://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/html/htmledition/the-binary-independence-model-1.html Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messages copied from Talk:Binary Independence Model

i was trying to make a resumed presentation of the model in question with source from that books pages. If it is still too close to the book's wording what should i do? would it be acceptable to refer people to the book link with the definition of the method and delete the definitions section? i am not sure i can rewrite better in my own words...

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riclas (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 January 2010

I have done some rewriting. I think, given the technical and factual nature of the content this is now far enough from the source not to infringe copyright (and it is only a page or so from an entire book, although that is spread over many web pages, so more eligible for fair use). However I will leave the decision for another admin to review. DES ^(talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reviewing admin should note that not all of the content on the page is in any way derived from the source, so this probbly shouldn't be a speedy in any case. DES ^(talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? @Anthony Appleyard: Why is this at AfD? It's currently tagged for CSD, and there's no other explanation except a copy-and-paste of a couple talk page comments as well as "queried CSD", whatever that means exactly. Are you querying something? Is someone else? WP:CSD doesn't have any information about queries. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Riclas, DESiegel, Gaspanic99, and Deacon Vorbis: At 05:55, 5 January 2019 I deleted Binary Independence Model because at 00:57, 5 January 2019‎ User:Gaspanic99 speedy-delete-tagged it as copyright violation.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've posted a request for assistance at WP:AN. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close unless Anthony Appleyard actually answers Deacon Vorbis's question and provides a clearly stated deletion rationale. And JJMC89, can you clearly explain why you appear to think being at AfD makes this immune to copyvio-based speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion reason would be WP:DEL2 (copyright violation). G12 has been declined twice, by Ged UK (Speedy deletion declined. Might have been blatant before, but rewrite has changed it sufficiently) and Anthony Appleyard (AfD'd). Given the first decline and DESiegel's note on the talk pagw, the article should not have been CSD'd by Gaspanic99 for close paraphrasing. Tagging as {{close paraphrasing}} or listing at WP:CP would be the appropriate action. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see if I understand. The article was closely paraphrased, but that was fixed by a rewrite as determined by Ged UK. After that, it was tagged for CSD twice more, and brought to AfD, with a confusing pile of copied talk page comments, because why? Out of inertia, or is there something we are still supposed to be deciding here? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein and Deacon Vorbis: The situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.