Delete - vanity/advert/bio-response to critics - biographer trying to use Wikipedia to refute critics (see note at top and sig at bottom) - Wikipedia is not the place for Roger J. Sandlands to use his own works to dispute allegations against Currie. - Tεxτurε 18:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Part of me wants to accept this as a pretty good bio; however the header and footer makes me suspicious of the info. Does anyone have access to the ANB (subscription required) who could check for copyvio? DJ Clayworth 19:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You'll have to check out the original leading paragraph here. We still need to discover the copyright issue. The writer may not own the copyright if the publisher does. - Tεxτurε 21:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
See my comment below, with the same time stamp as this one, concerning copyright issues. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the vfd notice from Lauchlin Currie and I'll attempt to verify that User:213.107.19.27 is indeed Roger J. Sandilands. If so, fantastic -- Sandilands is an economist of some note. Otherwise we have a copyvio problem (not a vfd problem). NPOV-ification is pretty easy -- if you bother to read the article you'll see that the only editorializing is the note at the very top; I've struck it off. -- Now, I do understand that removing the vfd notice is going to get somebody pissed off at me, and it's possible that User:213.107.19.27 is not Sandilands. I'll take my chances; I'd rather have that, than to piss off yet another knowledgeable contributor. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is what makes this project worthwhile. I'd love to see more articles from people like this and less entertainment-related substubs the likes of which this site is bombarded with on a daily basis from the same joker. If I sound like I have it in for this person, you're right. - Lucky 6.9 21:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the vfd notice again; I won't bother to do so a third time, so don't get your panties all in a twist, thanks. This vfd listing is a simple mistake, although a rather serious simple mistake. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:51, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My understanding of the VfD process is that you don't remove the tag while it is being discussed on VfD. How are people supposed to know that it has been nominated for deletion? This is not an action you, or anyone else, should take unilaterally. Please restore the VfD tag that you have again deleted. - Tεxτurε 21:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nope. If you want to see the vfd tag, you'll have to do it yourself. It's a mistake, & I won't help you make it (or remake it). Wile E. Heresiarch 22:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've re-added it. It is inappropriate to remove the VfD header while the article is still being discussed here, and if you continue to delete it, you can be blocked for vandalism. RickK 22:57, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, Rick, you righteous warrior, you. What part of "I won't bother to do so a third time, so don't get your panties all in a twist" are you not understanding? Wile E. Heresiarch 23:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- valid topic. I am listing this on Cleanup if it isn't already there. Davodd 00:02, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think it needs adjustment, but it seems a valid topic. Joyous 02:24, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep: this is a well-written, well-referenced article about an encyclopedia-worthy person. I hope Roger Sandilands (if it was him—he added his e-mail address to the original version of Harry White, so checking should be easy) continues to contribute more of the same. —No-OneJones 05:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Update: I emailed Sandilands to ask if he is the anonymous contributor and got this reply --
Dear Robert,
Yes, indeed. I did post them yesterday. I was not
sure what your style and conventions were, but I am
pleased that you seem happy with them.
Could you also ask him if he owns the copyright and is happy to release it under GFDL. If so, I suggest we take his word for it. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Check the link. This is exactly the kind of person we want to encourage; we need more people who know what they're doing. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
To further muddy the copyright question I found this article at [1]. The site appears to have no copyright statement. Don't know if this makes it more or less likely that its a copyvio. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've emailed the author about copyright issues -- the original version states that it's adapted from an article he wrote for American National Biography, so, if anything, the copyright issue is there. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Update: I have received another email from Sandilands. He has emailed me a different version of the Currie bio. At this point I suggest the original be deleted as a potential copyvio (wrt ANB) and post the other version. About Harry White, his contribution was originally posted to amazon.com as a book review. As Amazon claims only a nonexclusive right to use the comments [2], I see no potential for copyvio there. I'll follow up on all this stuff within a day. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Update: I have pasted the alternate version of the Currie biography (as emailed to me by Sandilands) into Lauchlin Currie/Temp. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If the original author understands and approves of GFDL then I'll change to keep. He has to realize that it will not remain in its current form. Others will change his bio. - Tεxτurε 19:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. He looks significant enough to me, a bit of cleaning up and wikification will make this a fantastic bio, and it certainly seems that any copyright question has been cleared up by the email exchange with Mr. Sandilands. —Stormie 03:38, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
