Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 June 1

There is an unsubstantiated claim on the talk page that this is a backwards copyio, and I started out assuming that this was likely to be correct. However, the first changes of substance to the text of the article took place in July 2005 ([1]), and these are not reflected in that external source. Neither are the two names added in August of that year ([2]). In September of that year, somebody noticed that the word "be" was duplicated and removed it ([3]) - the word is still duplicated in that external source. Clearly, that website did not copy from us as claimed on the talk page. They could both have been taken from another source, but that does nothing to help us establish that we have the right to publish it. I would ordinarily recreate something like this as a stub, but there is not a single secondary source cited in that article and no real indication of notability, as colorful and interesting as the story is. I'll leave it for somebody else to do the necessary research. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Done already. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section suspected of copyvio. Regardless of whether or not it was a copyvio, it was an advert. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]