Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. joe deckertalk to me 13:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pyrography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pyrography clearly exists, however I can't find any reliable sources describing it, just a few blogs and a few galleries using the word without any useful context. The article itself is a fusion of cleverly disguised advertisement and not at all disguised advertisement, and the gallery conflicts with the article on what is, or is not, Pyrography. Between the fact that it's all unsourced and that there's a good deal of advertspam, the page is pretty useless. I asked a few other users Sven Manguard Wha? 09:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overtaken By Events (OBE) Blatant copyvio of http://www.jessieobrien.com/pyrography, CSD-tagged accordingly Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of minutes checking reveals that the linked web page dates from 2007, whereas similar content was inserted into the Wikipedia article on various dates from March 2005 onwards. The copyright infringement is the other way round. It is essential to do a little checking before tagging for speedy deletion as a copyvio. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found several pages with identical content to parts / all of the article, didn't check all of them for dates, etc. Can we be sure on this? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of minutes checking reveals that the linked web page dates from 2007, whereas similar content was inserted into the Wikipedia article on various dates from March 2005 onwards. The copyright infringement is the other way round. It is essential to do a little checking before tagging for speedy deletion as a copyvio. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP should have an article on this topic. BigJim707 (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Hundreds of books, thousands of articles - how on earth could you struggle to find references for this? Blatantly notable topic, absolutely no reason to delete. It does need a rewrite and some citations; I don't have the time now but will see what I can do to fix it up tomorrow. Yunshui (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly recommend you start the article over from scratch. Not only because of the copyvio question, but also because the spammy prose, COI editors, and the fact that if you "accidentally forgot" to include most of the gallery, you'd be doing the subject a service. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but delete the page and start over, to be safe. No need to have potential copyvio lying around. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Much better now, though some pics should be brought back. The nom should never have been launched as the subject is clearly notable, with 13 other language versions etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've always known it as wood burning. Obviously notable with entire books written about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2011 (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.