Talk:List of musical equipment used by Kurt Cobain

message: Article was dual-nominated for deletion along with List of musical equipment used by Jonny Greenwood; discussion can be seen here. Result, according to the closing admin (User:Mangojuice), was:
:The result was slight merge the Jonny Greenwood, redirect the Kurt Cobain: that way, anyone wanting to merge information back can do so.
He then did so. Article was reverted back and forth several times. It was then discovered that at least portions of this article were blatant copyvio from its source, [] (see discussion above). Article was blanked, then reverted again in full, then blanked to the redirect.
- 04:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blanked the page in accordance with WP:COPYVIO, which states: "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there." I chose not to use the copyvio tag and simply to redirect it because there was already a recent AfD decision to redirect, and a further deletion process would have created nothing new. If anything this was a conservative move, as a copyvio tag would possibly have resulted in wholesale deletion. - Che Nuevara 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the vote for deletion outcome of Merge infers that the material would be kept, albeit in a different form.  The best thing to do still in my opinion is to rewrite instead of blanking.  We want to keep the informaiton after all. WesleyDodds 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some material should be kept, and I stated explicitly that merging should take place and that I would do it when I had time to go back to the source and start from scratch, as was clearly mandated by the amount of copyvio. It has always been my intention to uphold the decision of the AfD; however, it is a matter of law that copyrighted material be removed on sight, and I consider international law a more pressing and immediate need than Wikipedia consensus. - Che Nuevara 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People often endorse a merge without really thinking about it, so I wouldn't read too much into those comments.  It certainly doesn't imply that all the material should be kept (some people even said explicitly that only a little should be incorporated), and it doesn't even imply that some should be kept necessarily -- IMO it puts that off for editors to decide.  BTW if we can't agree that this article should stay redirected, I think we ought to take a debate on that issue to WP:DRV, since it would be reversing an AfD decision.  Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did suggest a deletion review, but that suggestion was rejected (diff). - Che 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Whether its merged or not, the first advisable step would be to rewrite the prose to remove the text that violates copyright.  I feel that's more constructive than outright blanking the information.  WesleyDodds 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blanked the page in accordance with WP:COPYVIO, which states: "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there." I chose not to use the copyvio tag and simply to redirect it because there was already a recent AfD decision to redirect, and a further deletion process would have created nothing new. If anything this was a conservative move, as a copyvio tag would possibly have resulted in wholesale deletion. - Che Nuevara 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the vote for deletion outcome of Merge infers that the material would be kept, albeit in a different form.  The best thing to do still in my opinion is to rewrite instead of blanking.  We want to keep the informaiton after all. WesleyDodds 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some material should be kept, and I stated explicitly that merging should take place and that I would do it when I had time to go back to the source and start from scratch, as was clearly mandated by the amount of copyvio. It has always been my intention to uphold the decision of the AfD; however, it is a matter of law that copyrighted material be removed on sight, and I consider international law a more pressing and immediate need than Wikipedia consensus. - Che Nuevara 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People often endorse a merge without really thinking about it, so I wouldn't read too much into those comments.  It certainly doesn't imply that all the material should be kept (some people even said explicitly that only a little should be incorporated), and it doesn't even imply that some should be kept necessarily -- IMO it puts that off for editors to decide.  BTW if we can't agree that this article should stay redirected, I think we ought to take a debate on that issue to WP:DRV, since it would be reversing an AfD decision.  Mangojuicetalk 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did suggest a deletion review, but that suggestion was rejected (diff). - Che 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments