User talk:Ortebro

Deletion of original article

Greetings-

Some time ago an article about Dr. Michelle R. Howard-Vital was deleted under the rationale of copyright infringement. In that I was the initial author and did not see the discussion and deletion until after it was in progress, I am without a clear understanding of the reasoning behind the deletion.

The text was provided to Cheyney University for PR by the author (myself), and thereafter to the Wikipedia entry. As the author, I don't see how a copyright is being infringed upon. I also took the photograph linked to the text through raleighwebdesigns.com.

Please explain this outcome. I have other valuable entries I'd like to add, but not if this Wikipedia's administrators will delete it.

Thank you.

Geri Vital

Ortebro (talk)

Copyrighted material must be explicitly released under the GFDL license. However, official bios rarely make good encyclopedia material as they do not adhere to the guidelines on neutrality. Also, articles on living people must follow the reliable and verifiable source policies. It also appears that you are closely linked to the subject of the article – please see the conflict of interest guideline. Thanks. – B.hotep •talk• 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-hotep:

GFDL: The release we can do.

NEUTRALITY: The content was not a perspective piece, nor an evaluation of the subject's actions. It was a chronology of verifiable positions held, which include historic "firsts" and connections with historic institutions. As I understand it, that was not the issue for deletion, rather it's original author. THAT was addressed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: My interest is in providing an accurate background for the subject, who, while performing substantial public service. I have no COI because I am volunteering for the institution where the subject works--at a loss to my family of a salary in the upper end of the 5-figure range. With NO salary, I will not make MORE with a one-page "where she worked" bio on Wikipedia.

Now HOW many bios currently on Wikipedia fall in the same category??? Wikipedia has more content devoted to OJ Simpson than this public university president.

Ortebro (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For releasing material under the GFDL, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. As far as COI goes, you signed your post as Geri Vital and I presumed you were the spouse of the the subject (according to the deleted article) and thus inherently involved with same – while this wasn't why the article was deleted, I am just preparing you for the concerns that may arise. Please continue this discussion here if you wish, I will be watching this page. Or, alternatively, if you would like a second opinion, please contact one of the other admins who had previously deleted this before me (see here for details). – B.hotep •talk• 15:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]