Talk:New York Press Club

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... perhaps it could be fixed with work, but that doesn't mean that the article should be deleted; the subject is notable, there are references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No doubt the subject is notable. But the article is laced with non-neutral language, self-serving details that are either unsourced or sourced to the NYPC website, and copyright violations for content copied from the NYPC website. FWIW he article was authored mostly by an NYPC employee. It would be more work to salvage a few bits and pieces of what's here than it would be to blow it up and start from scratch. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I literally have not managed to find a single sentence that does not violate either WP:NFC or WP:PROMOTION, or both. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...

The nominator left a comment: "reviewing admin: please note that the page was largely written by an employee of the subject and is also laced with copyvios from the subject's website"

I don't see any obvious signs of copyvio. On the contrary, a cursory look at the revision history shows multiple contributors. I would encourage nominator to document his concerns more fully. Geo Swan (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If you Google a random sampling of sentences from our article, about half of them have been copied from pages at nypressclub.org. If the reviewing admin doesn't want to do this, then that is fine, as this is a G11 nomination, not a G12 nomination. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, let's see. You think the article "was largely written by an employee of the subject" -- but you won't specifically name the problematic contributor, so the rest of us can examine their edits, to see if we feel the same concerns you do?

• Okay, let's see. You think the article is "laced with copyvios from the subject's website" -- but you won't offer any specific passages that are copyvios? You realize that if you named specific paragraphs that were copyright violations, it may be possible to easily bring the article into compliance, by simply removing those paragraphs, or paraphrasing them, or turning them into explicit quotes?

  I am at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do so. Geo Swan (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The article was brought into compliance by Seraphimblade, so these are moot issues at this point. If you're considering restoring any content, please make sure it doesn't include any copyvios and doesn't otherwise violate any policies or community guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

And as a token of good faith I'll answer your questions even though it's moot. There were two reasons I didn't identify the copyvios. First, as I mentioned, this was a G11 nomination, not a G12 nomination. Second, the copyvios were so interlaced with the non-copyvio but promotional content that it made it tedious and unnecessary to untangle the two. As for why I didn't name the employee, I try to avoid outing my fellow editors. However if you review this talk page and/or its history it should be obvious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent re-write by Tomwsulcer

Tomwsulcer, regarding your re-write of the article, thank you very much, it's hugely improved both over the stub as well as the previous spammy, copyvio version that was taken down by Seraphimblade. There's no reason to get testy and threaten to take me to ANI over this. The fact of the matter is that yesterday you restored a huge amount of content that was deemed spammy by multiple editors, with a confusing edit summary. It was... unseemly and not something most longstanding editors would want to be associated with. In any case, onward and upward. The current version could surely use improvements but it doesn't seem spammy to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

DrFleischman, thanks for explaining. My sense is the New York Press Club is not some commercial-type organization out to make a buck, but an association of journalists which does much good -- protecting journalists, advocating for press freedom, initiating key discussions on newsworthy topics, sponsoring debates, awarding journalism -- and I think that this is important during a time when the media is often under attack by politicians as "fake news" etc. The Press Club is not selling widgets, so the whole "spammy" criticism didn't make much sense to me. When you stripped down the article removing many valid references to the awards, and not taking into account that I've been contributing to Wikipedia for almost a decade, and know what I'm doing, I felt a bit like Sisyphus trying to re-roll a rock uphill.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, peace then. FWIW non-profit groups sometimes have the spammiest, most promotional articles, even ones that are working for noble causes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like most articles on colleges.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)