Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 16

A user (Graeme Bartlett) deleted our page as he thought we had broken a copyright agreement based on this publication: http://www.aidic.it/pres2014/001.pdf. I firstly contacted Graeme Bartlett explaining that we did not infringe on any copyright agreements since we own the copyright to this document, thus asking if the original content could be put back. He then told me to contact the OTRS team to release our ownership of the copyrighted material to Wikipedia. As authors of the original content that Graeme was concerned about, we then obtained written evidence from the publishers of the Pdf (http://www.aidic.it/pres2014/001.pdf) confirming that we own the copyright to it. Afterwards, since we own the copyright to this content, we have signed the standard Wikipedia Copyright Release agreement to release our copyright for publication on Wikipedia. After verifying this with the OTRS team (Matthew Dann), I was told to apply here to have our page "Smart Energy System" restored. Dave1898 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS comment Permission has been reveived (Ticket:2014100610005117), but another admin advised me to take it here, as there may be a few issues with tone and the like. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

< 2014 October 15

Deletion review archives: 2014 October

2014 October 17 >

If the article is restored, and the copyright permission is certainly adequate for that, I shall list it for speedy deletion or AfD as an advertisement. (I can not imagine it passing afd in its current form). It is not an encyclopedia article, but a promotional piece explaining the need for and the merits of their system. When I encounter submissions like this at NPP, I normally list them for deletion as both G11 and G12, to make it clear that even with permission, it's unsuitable. When I give advice in such situation, even if I think it might possibly pass afd, I make it very clear that it would be much better rewritten--most contributors do understand he problem, even if they prove unable to write a proper article. It's a shame the contributor has been advised to go through the complicated hoops for getting permission; it will inevitably give him the impression that we're a mindless bureaucracy that deals with the immediate face of things without evaluating the entire situation like intelligent humans. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is certainly not a valid G11, it has less chance of making it through an AfD unscathed than I would of making it through Hell in a gasoline suit unscathed. It might be appropriate for transwikiing?, but there's no usable content here for an encyclopaedia. It's simply not written like an encyclopaedia article. If the subject is suitable for an article (which is probably is), the only sensible thing to do is start from scratch. WilyD 12:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agreed; and no permission here is needed for doing that. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this in a more constructive direction - If the tone of our article is not suitable, then could I be given the opportunity to change the tone? Our original motivation for publishing the article was to contribute to the general understanding of how we need to change our energy supply in the future, not to promote ourselves. However, I accept that this line may not always be clear, since we are the people who created the concept we are trying to promote. We want to make the information available to everyone via Wikipedia, rather than keeping it for those fortunate enough to have access to scientific journal publications.