User talk:Vianello/Archives/2011/April

mali grad

Contested deletion of Mali grad:

This page should not be speedy deleted because all content on Culture.si is released under the same terms as wikipedia; CC-BY-SA as you can see here:

• Terms of use
• Enhance Wikipedia!

do check these things next time.

--U5K0 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kindly undo your illfounded deletion of the above article

Could you to look into the Mali grad article a little deeper please? An article on a web site that is apparently a mirror of (presumably en.) Wikipedia can stay on that website even if the original Wikipedia article has been deleted - notoriously typical of this is facebook. A web site that copies an old deleted Wikipedia article can then carry-on presenting that article as a supposed mirror, or worse as an “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported” that can be uploaded back to Wikipedia with seeming impunity as almost a primary source. The Mali Grad “free” and “mirror” article at www.culture.si, that appears to have been created no later than 30 March 2010 (see bottom of article’s page), is not backed-up with any references and therefore in no way can be considered as a reliable source or complete text for our article anyway – it doesn’t say it’s a mirror either. This raised my suspicions particularly as it has a Wikipedia-style format. Can you look back to before 30 March 2010 to see if this Mali grad article was created and subsequently deleted? If it is a Wikipedia mirror from before March 2010, how come our article has just been created? This article might be copyvio of a previously flawed and deleted Wikipedia article; if it is it should be re-deleted. I might be spinning around in circles here just as I believe this article is, but I think it’s worth investigation. Acabashi (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have just registered on the Culture.si web site. There is no obligation to provide reliable sources for anything written there - from what I see nobody adds any cites or proof anyway. Any edits go through the web site co-ordinators for approval - the more hyperbolic the better I bet - just look at the "mission statement" on the home page to get the flavour of the thing. As the site is basically a government promotional vehicle with approved content, what has been copy-pasted to our article is deeply suspect. Acabashi (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)