I would like to see this revision deletion reverted. It was done per WP:RD1 to remove a small amount of copyrighted text. Given that the copyvio was noticed relatively late, this resulted in the deletion of a large number of intervening edits and obscured the provenance of a decent amount of newly added content.
This is against current policy: see Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RD1, attribution and intervening edits for the details, including a caveat about a novel interpretation that – if adopted – could result in a change to those policies. But even if that were to happen – so far there has been zero indication of that – this revdel would still likely appear as disproportionate. That's because in order to completely expunge less than 0.7 kB of copyvio text, it resulted in the deletion of about 60 intervening edits and so has erased traceability for the numerous changes introduced in them, as well as for the 2.5 kB of text that they added. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:XRV might also be a reasonable location--it's not listed on the things that belong there or the things that don't (I don't think). But yeah, DRV is the wrong place I'm afraid. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of one of several ways in which Wikipedia's policies relating to copyright are in fact unworkable and self-contradictory. If I find text which infringes my copyright, I can legally require all versions of the page in which it appears to be removed from public view. However, Wikipedia policy is that history should be kept, to enable us to know which editor wrote which part of the page in question. It isn't possible to satisfy both requirements. Personally, if I see a relatively small copyright infringement which would require the loss of dozens of revisions in order to remove it, I normally leave it alone, unless it seems to me that there's some reason why it's particularly problematic. However, once the content has been removed, I absolutely would never restore it, no matter what Wikipedia policy or consensus among editors might say, because if I did so I would be knowingly breaking the law. Also, I wouldn't recommend that any other administrator do so either. The law has to take precedence over what a group of Wikipedia editors think. That doesn't mean that I'm happy with the situation, but it seems to me that that's how it is. JBW (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what was there, but copyright law (in the US and in general) isn't black-and-white. Unless this was a huge portion of the original work it is very likely it falls under "fair use". I feel like I should give a Wiki-seminar on the issue some day. Or maybe I'll write an essay. But no, it's almost certainly not breaking the law. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Shirt58 handled this deletion, who I hereby notify. Timone: are you familiar with WP:DCM? — Charles Stewart(talk) 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Timone13 is, of course, welcome to provide evidence of being the copyright holder, and if so to licence it for free reuse, but at present that hasn't been done, and unless and until it is, the page must remain deleted. Information about how to donate copyrighted material is provided on the page linked above by Charles Stewart, and an editor simply saying that they hold the copyright isn't enough. However, in my opinion a more important point is that even if copyright permission were properly provided, the material would still be unsuitable for Wikipedia, as it is far too promotional in character. My advice to Timone13 is that a better way forward is to forget about seeking to have this undeleted, and about providing copyright release, and instead just rewrite the information in a new non-promotional form. JBW (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse basically per JBW: the content would need to be compatibly licensed before it could be used, and in any event we are an encyclopedia and thus don't really want promotional material copied from an organization's website, regardless of its copyright status. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Aye, the content in question would need a licence before we can use it, it's not sufficient to simply assert it. Also, most of the text is quite promotional and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic to the point that it borders on being eligible for WP:CSD#G11. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
