Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Removed. User:Josve05a, thanks so much for being so conscious of these issues. :) If it doesn't result in deleting the whole page, you can generally just remove it and leave it a {{Uw-copyright-new}} for the user. Most of these, we can process immediately without the seven day delay. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonriddengirl: Yes, but I most likely are tagging these in conjunction with reviewing AFCs. Then the script will send out a message it has been declined for copyright reasons. It is then easier to just tag with {{copyvio}} than to remove them manually as well and tag for {{copyvio-revdel}}, in case I missed something it would be better if someone more epxerienced with copyvios handled these and investigates, imo. (t) Josve05a (c)07:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it also then increases the number of people who must handle something, User:Josve05a, which probably isn't all that efficient. :) {{copyvio-revdel}} is optional, and if a copyvio can be removed that easily, I'm not sure it's the best rationale for refusing the draft. When the article is unusable, of course, because of copyvio, deleting the whole thing makes sense, but if the article is usable except for one section, this seems like an impracticable solution. After we remove the copyvios, we've got drafts sitting around flagged as rejected for copyvios that don't have copyvios. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Removed. User:Josve05a, thanks so much for being so conscious of these issues. :) If it doesn't result in deleting the whole page, you can generally just remove it and leave it a {{Uw-copyright-new}} for the user. Most of these, we can process immediately without the seven day delay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)