Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cesária Évora

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Cesária Évora per WP:COPYVIO and No Context and Redirect to Barefoot Diva. Cbrown1023 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesária Évora

Copyright violations. See WP:COPYVIO.

Delete as nom. Big top 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep whats the big deal. If they are copyvio issues the article just needs to be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

We still need to delete it to get rid of the copyvio text. MER-C 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though you should have blanked the entire page and noted that there are multiple sources over at WP:CP. MER-C 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with rewrite to remove copyvio). This is a notable artist (she meets WP:MUSIC by any standard). Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content should have been removed in September (I did not see that it was noted as copyvio in September already). There is no alternative content so should be deleted for now. Ori Redler 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should really be kept, or even speedy kept as it clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Just remove the copyvio and restore previous content before the copyvio insertion (I assume there's good content in the past, if not I can translate the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia).--Hús ö nd 18:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, unbelievably, no safe revision: the original version (from 2002!!) was mostly copypasta. Translate away! Zetawoof^(ζ) 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep I believe this process of deletion is an unnecessary waste of time. one could simply edit the article removing material that is "copy vio". There is ample information on her from millions of other sources. She is a grammy nominated artist for crying out loud.

bbc bbc boston globe.

if there was a copy vio on michael jackson or madonna would we delete the page- no just revert or edit.Muntuwandi 18:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as teh copyright violations are removed Fabhcún 19:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article can be restarted when a non-copvio article is written. One solution would be to make this a stub article --- Skapur 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is not notability but copyvio. --- Skapur 20:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is if there was a copyvio on Micheal Jackson or Madonna would we bother deleting the article only to start it all over again. What a waste of time and effort. Simply edit out the copyvio material. This is a very frivolous process.Muntuwandi 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there were a copyvio on a more famous person's article, it would be even more important to correct it ASAP! --- Skapur 01:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose converting the article to a music stub with basic information(name, birth-date, place, music genre) and nominate this article for speedy keep.

Keep & Cleanup This seems to be much ado about nothing. Yes it looks like someone lifted the text from another site. It just needs a rewrite rather than a big production. --Kevin Murray 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE THAT I REWROTE THE ARTICLE AND POSTED IT AT Barefoot Diva. I believe that it is free of copywrite violations and could be moved to this location. --Kevin Murray 05:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction still needs to be rewritten; your version still derives heavily from this source. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes this is among the sources, but per your request I drew from more sources and restrcutured the introduction. Please review and comment. --Kevin Murray 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the seriousness of copvio. But that said what is so sacred about the information at http://africanmusic.org/artists/evora.html.Muntuwandi 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi, I would say that it is not sacred, but Zetawoof was expressing another legitimate concern about perceived plagerism as my first rewrite was substantialy based on only one source. Now this should be fine, but I invite some more editors to jump in. I am not an expert on music etc., but I feel that this topic is well worth the effort to preserve. --Kevin Murray 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information isn't "sacred" - the issue is that the phrasing of the introduction (particularly the emphasis on Évora as a "barefoot diva") is heavily derivative - the original revision was practically a paraphrasing of the source. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup clean it up. Obvious famous person. --Xiahou 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.