Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink swastika

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pink swastika was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Not encyclopedic, also a copyvio from [1]. Rhobite 04:44, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

216.114.17.54 05:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The work is encyclopedic in that it explains what the book, "The Pink Swastika" is.

None of the Wikipedia text violates any copyright, and it is all original material.

There is a reference to another work on the Internet in the form of links. Giving a reference to a source work is not a copyright violation and is a common practice in encyclopedias.

I have before me the Columbia Desk Encyclopedia. One entry is "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This entry merely describes in about 15 lines of text what the Protocols is. It then provides references to two copyrighted books that debunk the "Protocols." The format of the Columbia Encyclopedia "Protocols" article is exactly the format of "The Pink Swastika" Wikipedia article, and the "encyclopedic" content is the same.

If this format is good enough for the Columbia Encyclopedia, why not for Wikipedia?

216.114.17.54 05:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyright violation? Below is text from the linked page. You will see that EXPLICIT PERMISSION IS GIVEN to circulate the text electronically. Furthermore, a mere link to a work is not a copyright violation anyway. It is a citation.

About the Annotated Pink Swastika

Citizens Allied for Civic Action (CAFCA) PO Box 510920 Milwaukee, WI 53203 Copyright 1996 All rights to reproduce the annotations and comments in this study are reserved by CAFCA except that permission is granted to circulate this file electronically, in its entirety without changes, and to quote extensively from it as long as due credit is given to its origin.

216.114.17.24 05:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Permission is only given to circulate the file electronically and in its entirety without changes. Neither restriction, especially the latter, is compatible with the GFDL. Sorry, it's not legal to post it here. Delete. — Gwalla | Talk 05:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It gives permission for circulation in its entirety as well as "to quote extensively." However, it is still incompatable with the GDFL.
  • Delete not for subject matter but for non-compatibility with GDFL. No reason that a NPOV, GDFL-friendly version can't be added later. - Lucky 6.9 05:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An essay in any case. Copyright and notability status both seem doubtful too, but no useful content anyway IMO. Andrewa 07:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rework. The article already has the rewrite template up; that will probably encourage at least an adequate stub.

Bobsillyheimer 03:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) If you check the links, you should see that I have added a copyright note given specific permission to link to Wikipedia As for the Glinn text, I don't have access to that website, which was moved from Milwaukee to Key West. I think if you were to compare closely, you'd see that the Glinn text is an earlier edition. But that would involve considerable work.

I've just done a Google search on Pink Swastika, and the first result was my Geocities Pentagon page, the second Google result was the Glinn site.

As for content, I suggest you read the Columbia Desk Encyclopedia article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Is this so different?

As for style, I'm not sure what rules you have, but I don't know that a uniform style is required on here. And isn't propagation of information more important than style?

I do object to the claim that it is an essay with no useful content. It *IS* useful to describe for people what a book is. The Columbia Desk Encyclopedia does this with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and I have to wonder if you would object to that? There is useful content even in this article, and many pages of useful information in the links.

As for GDFL, I'll try to see if I can find something out about that.

In closing, let me say that I was very disappointed to find out what Wikipedia is. I didn't know anything about it except that it came up on some Google searches. If it were a reliable site presenting verifiable information by recognized scholars, I would welcome it. But now that I find anybody can post anything and all people worry about is "copyright" and "GDFL" and "essay" and "stub" without checking on the truth of what's being posted, I realize that nothing in Wikipedia can be relied upon. That doesn't mean that I won't continue to read things that come up on Wikipedia in Google searches, but I will never use Wikipedia material in anything I write unless I find the information in a more realiable place, such as the Columbia Desk Encyclopedia. Pass the salt cellar. :o)

Anon comment: The only way the Pink Swastika is going to become as notable as the Protocols of the Elder of Zion is through this kind of indulgence and free promotion. There's lots of lying, libellous rubbish on the internet, it doesn't all need to be documented here.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pink_swastika&oldid=357565295"