This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
How is this a copyright violation? This article paraphrases and summarizes the facts found at http://cbs3.com/bios. Facts cannot be copyrighted, only their particular expression. Unless I'm missing something, the expression of facts in this article is clearly different than the expression of the facts at the station website. At any rate, even if there are parts of this article which may violate copyright (I have not examined every single biographical entry, but a sample of them), the entire article is not a violation and problems can be fixed by removing or rewriting any parts that may violate copyright. DHowell (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you completely, and this goes for all of these articles. Even though the text was re-written in some areas, it was still pulled from the websites of these stations. As far as I'm concerned, that's plagarism. An even bigger issue is the notablilty of these articles -- they're not notable enough to keep as stand-alone entries. The names can be merged into the individual station articles, without all that extra stuff that no one really cares about. Also take into consideration that the user who created these articles was outed as a sockpuppet of a notorious Wikipedia abuser, Spotteddogsdototg. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism is not the same as copyright violation. The solution to plagiarism is to cite the source if it was not already cited; if the source is cited then it is not plagiarism, but research. Also, regardless of who created the article over 16 months ago, it has been edited heavily by many editors since then. If notability is the issue, that could have been resolved by allowing the AfD to run its course, or better, allowing your merge proposal to be considered before nominating for deletion less than 14 hours later. As for whether "no one really cares about" this content, that's not for you to unilaterally decide. Several people have been making constructive edits to these articles, so obviously at least someone cares about them. DHowell (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
