@MER-C: Sorry, but the instructions you inserted on those articles do not make sense to me. The only way to contest deletion is by You can demonstrate that this text is in the public domain or is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia. There is no evidence that these are copyright violations, but anyone disputing that is expected to prove, with evidence, that they are in the public domain, which is impossible if they really were written by Freeknowledgecreator? I am not familiar with CCI, but Skoojal's investigation page shows a few copyright violations detected in 2014. This would only be a small fraction of the articles they wrote. WP:G5 deletion (i.e. article created in violation of a block or ban and no substantial edits by others) would make a lot more sense. --Pudeo (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am going down this route because I can delete articles that do not qualify for G5. There was some resistance to nuking everything on the spot indiscriminately, so this process gives interested parties a seven day window to furnish a rewrite. G5 deletions are easy to contest and get restored (some of the G5 deletions were contested), while the Wikipedia:Copyright problems process forces a from-scratch rewrite. MER-C17:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I appreciate the clean-up, but I feel that some useful content would be lost if all articles created by the blocked user would be indiscriminately deleted. Sadly, some of his creations are quite important books. G5 vs. copyright – POV issues can be fixed by others by tweaking wordings or adding additional reviews in some articles (of course not on an industrial scale). I added two comments to the list of articles above. I think atleast these two articles could stay. --Pudeo (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
