Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Japanese/Reader/彗星

Violates: WP:SOURCE

This was copied from the Japanese Wikipedia article, it makes no sense to copy the entire thing and put it here, it is simply easier to link to the actual page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 26 September 2011
 * Delete I disagree with Hethrir's reason but urge deletion because the article is in Japanese, not English.-- Arthur Vogel  13:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I agree that the article should be deleted on the grounds that it is not written in English. Presumably it was copied here with the intent to translate, but it has now been six years with no translation attempt made.  Time to go. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I had not noticed that this was part of a reader.  We should keep it, but we should also import the original source to get out of the copyright vio situation. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wondered about this. Is it meant to be in Japanese? I thought some of these pages were stories or articles to enable the student of Japanese to practice reading. Having said that a ja wp article wouldn't be appropriate except in a very advanced book QU TalkQu 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this makes sense in context, that context being a reading in Japanese to go with the Japanese language text it is supposedly part of. I would think that if it were linked appropriately from the Japanese/Reader page as an Advanced text, it would be acceptable, as the other Japanese texts so linked in that project are; though I would expect it to have at least a few annotations. Chazz (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be in Japanese, and it is in an advanced section, but why would you want one article to be here instead of linking to the actual one? What is the purpose of having it here when you could go onto ja.wikipedia and find one for yourself. The only thing the article gives is a few words, but even for that an advanced student should be able to look up the words on an online dictionary. Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand that it may be more appropriate to direct the reader to a real JP Wikipedia article but I think the idea of having the text here at EN Wikibooks might be so that commentary and a glossary can be added inline to the text to aid the reader. That would be the best use of such material.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 00:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, not in English and if the alleged copy from Wikipedia is certain, it lacks the proper attribution and falls under the definition of copyvio; of course that anyone can add the attribution, but unless that is done and someone commits to work on the material I see no reason not to delete it (even considering Chazz's points).
 * Hethrir, there is some value in maintaining material together as to permit the generation of a stand alone work, in any case Chazz clearly makes the distinction that the material should be annotated. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Provided that there's no copyright violation then I see no reason to delete this page. It fits into the context of a language learning book very well.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 21:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a pointless discussion, the article was created in October 2005 it hasn't been annotated or made use in any form in the work that it was added to. There is the consideration on the presumable (I didn't verify), stated in the nomination by Hethrir, copy from JP Wikipedia. I'm all for keeping valid and usable content from Wikipedia, I have even gone out of my way to object to speedy deletions of on scope, active and recent copy-paste English articles, but in this instance I don't see the point. The only relation to the parent work is the language of the article. I could just as well go and add other articles from the same source, even having a deeper relation with a language book and use the same justification people are giving to support a keep. I would understand a keep if the editor that made the inclusion defended it and provided us some assurances that he/she would try to work on it.
 * I support all the points advanced for a keep but they clearly do not apply to this specific case and page. I will change my opinion if someone commits to make this content valid and useful for the Japanese wikibook. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a copyvio will make this discussion obsolete if not opposed or corrected. I propose that the page be tagged as copyvio (after verification) since I doubt anyone outside of the Japanese project/community would have a valid rational for, on a whim, add the required attribution or justify the request of a transwiki. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no objection was made I will go ahead and tag the page as copyvio, this will permit for a quick deletion of for someone to step forward and take responsibility for the usefulness of the content. I strongly dislike the notion of having to deal with a copyvio at the same time as a RfD (I have expressed this view in previous instances) but at this time I don't see way to address the issues... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the copyvio claim hasn't been addressed, or the required attribution was made (or transwiki of the edit history requested) by anyone willing to work on the page, I will close this RfD as a copyvio. From the discussion only one opposing vote will remain "valid" but as defined by common practice if not by policy, deletions due to copyvio supersedes any position(s) for keep (even if in majority or with a valid fundament) that does not resolve the copyright violation. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)