Talk:Hindu Council UK
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) on 16 June 2020. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Copyvio
[edit]For anyone confused by the history here, this appears to have been a copyvio from the very first revision, but it's something I realized only after initiating a cleanup after my PROD of this article was declined. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Then perhaps I have missed something, Vanamonde93 – I've reverted to before the large-scale copyvio from here, inserted at 17:37 on 12 November 2011, but had thought the earlier content was OK. Have you been able to identify a source that those initial few sentences were copied from? If so I'll happily remove that content too. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: A lot of that version is lifted from here, and the very first version has the same problem. It's not every word, but it's most of the phrasing; concerns are habitually raised at DYK and elsewhere about paraphrasing that's less close. Am I incorrect in assuming this is a problem? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, you're absolutely right, Vanamonde93, that is definitely not OK and I've removed it, thanks for pointing it out, my mistake. If I'd been a little more wide-awake I'd have looked at the talk-page and seen your note before I started looking at the article history. No clear idea what should happen here next, but this no longer seems to be a viable page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: Given the copyvio, I would have deleted it had I not already tagged it. Reducing it to the barest minimum is also acceptable, I suppose; I have serious concerns about notability, but I haven't the stamina for what's likely to be a long AfD, given the number of times the org's been name-dropped in the media and given the obvious extent to which they've tried to publicize themselves (I have yet to find a reliable source stating they actually represent all British Hindu groups). If you have the time, I would appreciate you looking at articles linking to this one, for copyright problems; I'll let you know if I find any. I don't particularly want to act as an admin here because I've worked on other articles about diasporic Hindu groups. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, with hindsight, I would have probably deleted it too if I'd had the sense to read your comment beforehand. I've now proposed a merge, let's see how that goes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: Given the copyvio, I would have deleted it had I not already tagged it. Reducing it to the barest minimum is also acceptable, I suppose; I have serious concerns about notability, but I haven't the stamina for what's likely to be a long AfD, given the number of times the org's been name-dropped in the media and given the obvious extent to which they've tried to publicize themselves (I have yet to find a reliable source stating they actually represent all British Hindu groups). If you have the time, I would appreciate you looking at articles linking to this one, for copyright problems; I'll let you know if I find any. I don't particularly want to act as an admin here because I've worked on other articles about diasporic Hindu groups. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, you're absolutely right, Vanamonde93, that is definitely not OK and I've removed it, thanks for pointing it out, my mistake. If I'd been a little more wide-awake I'd have looked at the talk-page and seen your note before I started looking at the article history. No clear idea what should happen here next, but this no longer seems to be a viable page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: A lot of that version is lifted from here, and the very first version has the same problem. It's not every word, but it's most of the phrasing; concerns are habitually raised at DYK and elsewhere about paraphrasing that's less close. Am I incorrect in assuming this is a problem? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
[edit]
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20090113142404/http://www.hinducounciluk.org/newsite/aboutus.asp. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)