Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/SimpleAmoxicillin/clavulanic acid

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RTT article test case

I am proposing a test set of five articles from the translation task force for deletion. They:

are not maintained, meaning content can be inaccurate and out of date
appear to be part of our encyclopedia, when in fact they are unmaintained content forks
are indexed by search engines
are needless and redundant content forks (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) that are not temporary
are all titled "Simple", which is also a fork of the simple English Wikipedia
do not reflect our current consensus. For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Desmopressin and the recent drug pricing discussions.
have content that is copied and pasted without attribution to original authors
waste a lot of the valuable time of Wikignmoes relating to maintenance (particularly the gnoming editors updating templates, citation styles etc).
are out of date, often by some years, which poses a risk to the communities and readers of the non English wikipedias where they are translated into.
are also not in use - I have also gained email confirmation from Doc James that these articles are no longer in use and can be deleted from the perspective of the task force.

Background

We have more than a thousand articles associated with the translation task force (link here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force). Full list here: [1]. These articles seem to be copied lead statements and most haven't been edited since creation eg here. This has come to my attention whilst doing a survey of medical templates, as many templates that had come to my attention are used on those articles.

With regard to Medical translation task force

It's clearly a very worthy goal and a great effort has gone in. However, the translation task force really seems to relate to WP MED foundation which is a meta organisation and should more appropriately be based there, in my opinion. I think that the articles that have been copied should be deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no concerns with deletion of all these articles. They represent an old workflow that used Microsoft word documents, which we are no longer using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this WikiProject self-management, or an outsider fiddling? Can you link a discussion or mention of this on the main WikiProject talk page, or make a clear claim to be representing the wishes of the WikiProject? Doc James' post above gives confidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming "yes", Delete all per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tom, especially the 100% copyvio and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I'm not sure I follow who SmokeyJoe is asking or claiming to be "an outsider fiddling". The RTT pages were entirely created by Doc James to serve a translation project he ran outside of en:wp and were never maintained by any Wikipedian. The "Wiki Project Med Foundation" that organised this are separate from WP:MED and have now moved to their own separate wiki (not Meta and non-WMF). Note that I think the admin should delete the full list the Tom links here -- there is no need to have a separate discussion about the remainder. -- Colin°^Talk 08:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination would be to tag them as {{historical}}, but we'd probably have to add a note to each talk page to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. (I believe that Doc James wrote most of the content that was copied to these pages, but it's still better to have all the paperwork in place.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting approach; I guess I'm indifferent to which is chosen, because just look at the pageviews on any of them. Basically, NOBODY ever looked at almost any of them. There was a gynormous timesink and drain of valuable resources. Deleting might be cleaner, but I like the historical indication of how useless they were and how outdated most of them are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there are 1200 pages, so, WhatamIdoing, that's a lot of copyright-compliance work for someone for pages that the principal and only editor has already stated they don't use. And Doc James did not write "most of the content that was copied to these pages". He copy-edited existing leads and added a little new content, which is very much not the same thing. The "Historical" thing would be appropriate if there was in the past some significant community involvement with editing and discussing those pages, many links to those pages and valid reason to refer back to this "Historical" content. These have none of those. -- Colin°^Talk 07:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, then I am convinced to Delete per CWW concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colin, take a look at Cardiac tamponade, specifically at these edits, which he made in the hour before copying the "simple" version to the separate page. The mw:Who Wrote That? tool indicates that he wrote nearly every word in the lead. So there likely isn't a copyright problem (because you can copy your own content without linking to the original page), but it might be helpful to future editors if we made a note about it anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not really sure what your point is here, which deviates from my experience when examining the translation pages for arbcom. So some of the pages may be borderline copyright violations because the edits preceding the creation of the translation page replaced much of the existing lead and installed new text. Text that fails WP:LEAD because it doesn't summarise the article body. I read existing text If the amount of fluid increases slowly (such as in hypothyroidism) the pericardial sac can expand to contain a liter or more of fluid prior to tamponade occurring. If the fluid effusion occurs rapidly (as may occur after trauma or myocardial rupture) as little as 100 mL can cause tamponade is replaced with If fluid increases slowly the pericardial sac can expand to contain more than 2 liters; however, if the increase is rapid as little as 200 mL can result in tamponade. Other than changing the numbers and making it ungrammatical and less informative, this essentially the same text. Anyway, if the author of the pages, which are effectively user-space drafts given that nobody uses them, nobody links to them and nobody edits them, doesn't feel WP should retain them, I have better things to do than argue about what percentage of the text violates copyright. -- Colin°^Talk 21:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        And it remains to be seen if CC By-SA attribution will be respected in the off-Wikipedia forks. That is where it matters. Yes. Delete all of these simple CCW breaches rather than take time to sort which have CWW issues ... I cannot imagine dropping all that copyright work on our beleaguered admins who work that area. In my experience examining them in the past, there was little concern for CWW when they were created, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        My point is, that if the argument is "delete as a copyvio", then the page on cardiac tamponade contains 236 words, 203 of which (86%) were placed on the page by Doc James. I believe that some editors named "Colin" and "SandyGeorgia" have discussed at very great length on other pages the work by Doc James to re-write the leads of articles in this "simple" form. I don't think that copyvio concerns should be considered dispositive here. The only real question is whether we want to keep a history of what happened in these pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        My argument at 21:45 5 Sept is delete rather than expose copyvio admins to having to sort how many of them have CWW issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If the argument was that in virtually all of the 1200 drafts, Doc James was the sole author of the text copied, then there would be merit in dismissing the copyright concerns. However, in virtually all of the 1200 drafts, Doc James is not the sole author of the text, only "most of it" and to varying degrees. I accept that in many examples, most sentences are entirely new [though I haven't analysed source->wiki originality], but some are retained and some are revised (the odd word substituted). The text was copied bulk with no concern whatsoever as to attribution. Our terms of use 7c make it abundantly clear that importing co-authored CC BY-SA-licensed text requires attribution. -- Colin°^Talk 09:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Treat this as a draft. If ~~it were a draft, it~~these were drafts, they would have been deleted as G13 by now. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.