Template:Did you know nominations/Downtown Community House
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 11:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient original text
Downtown Community House
[edit]- ... that the Downtown Community House on Washington Street is one of the last traces of Lower Manhattan's Little Syria neighborhood?
Created/expanded by Tfine80 (talk). Self nom at 20:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article length, date and sources check out. The hook is in the article (first sentence) however it has not inline citation after it. DYK guidelines stipulate that hook facts need an inline citation in the same sentence in the text (not at the end of the paragraph). Yazan (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know. I don't want to raise unnecessary obstacles due to my own ignorance, but the article creator clarifies on the article talk page that he is the commissioner of the original report (http://savewashingtonstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105-107-and-109-Report-Save-Washington-Street.pdf) reproduced extensively here word-for-word, and not the author, but that the author is aware that he has released her work on Wikipedia. I ask again: is this the way it should be done, according to our rules? If this is a problem, if may be so for Tfine80's uploads of images on the Commons, as well: images which are prominently featured in this article. My limited understanding of copyright law is that commissioning a study does not grant you authorial rights, and that we still need author Kate S. Reggev's release of her work.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well then, that's a matter that should be dealt with by OTRS, I suppose.
The article should be put on hold then, until it's clarified by OTRS. Yazan (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Todd's looking into this now, we'll hopefully have the right permission license up soon enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well then, that's a matter that should be dealt with by OTRS, I suppose.
- It's been two weeks since these issues were first noted. Has there been any progress on your end toward settling this? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Judging by his edit history, the article creator has not made any progress since this statement, weeks back. So as far as I understand it, we are still faced with an article that is a repost of a published work, written by one Kate S. Reggev, who has not been heard from in anyway. Apparently commissioned by the wiki article creator, but without a license to release this work to WP. I don't see how this can proceed, can anyone? Due to lack of any follow up from the article creator, I suggest this DYK submission be refused. But maybe there's some other option I'm not aware of. I don't work in this area often, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Among other things, DYK rules require that articles contain 1500 prose characters of original material. As best I can determine, none of the material in here is original, but was previously published in this report and was written by someone other than the uploader. Even if Tfine80 had returned with the appropriate permissions—I don't see any permission in the PDF file that could conceivably satisfy Wikimedia Commons as to the provenance of the photo in the article, and I'm disappointed that Tfine80 has not pursued any permissions since he said he would (though he edited on Wikipedia to put a "citation needed" template on an unrelated article last week)—that would still not render the article eligible for DYK. Many thanks to Shawn in Montreal for pointing out the issues with the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, we really need a formal and verifiable release, either through OTRS or through the organization's website, for both the text and the images, and either way this isn't DYK-eligible unfortunately. I'll keep an eye out for a release, but if it isn't forthcoming the article and image may need deleting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have tagged the image at the Commons as missing a valid permission. According to the notice, the file can be speedily deleted seven days after this template was added, which is 16 October 2012. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, we really need a formal and verifiable release, either through OTRS or through the organization's website, for both the text and the images, and either way this isn't DYK-eligible unfortunately. I'll keep an eye out for a release, but if it isn't forthcoming the article and image may need deleting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
