Talk:Bill Wilson Center

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

California: San Francisco Bay Area

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

Was a previous version of this article a copyright violation of the Bill Wilson Center website?

In my rewrite of the article, I have not used any of the content in the revision marked as a copyright violation by SimonTrew (talk · contribs). But I've looked through the Wikipedia page and http://www.billwilsoncenter.org/about/ and don't see any plagiarism or copyright violations. Am I missing anything?

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bill Wilson, Jr. participants Theroadislong (talk · contribs), Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), and Bearcat (talk · contribs) for a third opinion. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite — exactly as I suspected it might be when I supported Dennis Brown's suggestion in the AFD discussion, this is now an infinitely better and entirely keepable article. Bravo to you.

On to your question, I took a look at the duplication detector report that led to the old article getting flagged for copyvio — and as you can see, the "copyvio" is just situational phrasing matches of three or four words apiece, mostly on proper names like "Santa Clara University" or "Bill Wilson Center" or "Webster Center" that couldn't be rephrased even if we wanted to, or on simple phrases like "in Santa Clara", "to change the" or "family therapy program" or, my favourite of all, "mayor in 1965". Nobody sane would ever actually sue us for plagiarism over any of that — they'd be laughed out of court in three seconds flat. So no, the article should never actually have been flagged for copyvio. And, of course, that tag applied (rightly or wrongly) to the old version, and not to your current rewrite. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words about my work on the article, and thank you for reviewing the incorrectly applied copyvio tag! Cunard (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after the automatic report I did a manual comparison of the article and that at the link, and both its general structure and longer phrases of the article seemed a lift to me, with minor word changes. I don't think I was trigger-happy in applying the COPYVIO tag: if others decide it was not, then that's fine by me, but we should be active when we suspect something is a COPYVIO. Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]