Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard J. Doscher

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.

While I respect Jerzy's concerns, most of the early voters did not cite the copyvio as the dominant reason for deletion. They argued that this was "vanity" which, however prejudicial you consider that word, is the normal shorthand used here for an article about a person which is either auto-biographical or unverifiable. I find that there is concensus to delete this from the main article space on that basis.

Noting that there is an associated user who appears to be the same person, I am going to offer to move this to his user page. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Richard J. Doscher[edit]

This VfD's validity was challenged in its first 15 hours per the claim of the article being a copyvio. No one now appears to support the copyvio claim. IMO
  • the votes cast after time the copyvio was raised are valid,
  • but the debate got less than a full day of unquestioned validity, and
  • the most reasonable step is to restart its "clock" from the starting point, providing 5 uninterrupted calendar days of consideration.
--Jerzy·t 04:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nom & Del vote: This police chief of a population-55,000 city has no higher apparent distinction than that. User:Rdoscherca (R Doscher of Califonia?) has resolving copyvio concerns via EMail by stating he is both the author and subject. His baliwick is about one 5-thousandth of the US population, and where i come from, chiefs are considered professionals whose training must be up to snuff but who exercise less significant policy-making discretion than the elected officials on zoning commissions. If he's one of the few who use the position as a rung on a political ladder, he may later become notable, but he's not now. WP:BIO#People still alive seems to establish non-notability. --Jerzy~t 07:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I nom'ed this bio for n-n, and i'm a bit embarrassed to see "vanity" being tossed in, by the only three other del voters, as a reason. IMO we have here an honest misunderstanding (in fact, maybe only a boldly edited-in speculataion, rather than a disagreement) about notability here. We have here an apparently responsible professional, who realizes that stating the role of his personal leadership in innovation is part of the advancement of professionalism within his field. IMO there is such a difference in degree, between that and a student using WP for self assertion, as to constitute a difference in kind. We might be wise in general to consider including the word "vanity" (which presumes to determine a contributor's state of mind) a term of abuse worth mentioning as a form of personal attack. In any case, vanity does not mean "n-n and autobio", and i am heartily sorry that the word is that popular, and that closely associated with "del", in this VfD. --Jerzy·t 14:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I'm torn. That's a pretty good article, but I'm not sure on notability. Scimitar 15:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Flcelloguy below. Scimitar 17:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyvio from http://www.ycpd.org/index.cfm?navid=1023. I would have thought that something from the Yuba City Police Department would be public domain, but it says at the bottom of the page "© 2003 Yuba City Police Department, All Rights Reserved". Listed on Copyright problems. RickK 22:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Only works of the US federal government and the state of California are public domain by default. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article's talk page, this question was raised in November, 2004. The submitter is the authorized copyright holder - the chief of police. I've removed the copyvio notice. --FCYTravis 00:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to the copyvio boilerplate. The chief of police may be the subject of the article, but he is not the copyright holder. The copyright holder is the city of Yuba City, and someone representing the city as an entity would have to tell us that they waive copyright. RickK 04:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
While RickK is technically correct, I would assume that Yuba City routinely authorizes officials to distribute biographies of themselves. The Chief is probably so authorized. Xoloz 18:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then why would they need a copyright claim at the bottom of the page? RickK 23:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
This is boilerplate, probably to protect from mischevious use by less than admirable people (suspects angry at the sheriff, for example) The Sheriff wouldn't take copyright on a city site, but he can maintain practical control. These are the sorts of questions that motivated me to get my JD :) Xoloz 05:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, and nowhere close to meeting WP:BIO standards . Police chiefs of cities of this size are not generally notable. Merging wouldn't work well because there have probably been a number of police chiefs for Yuba City and there's nothing to indicate that the current chief is any more notable than any of his predecessors. Quale 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information. Thank you for your feedback on the entry. The copywright on the Police Department website was requested by me in order to control distribution of material. The government code in CA views Police Chiefs differently from other governmental appointees in that the Chief is soley responsible for all aspects of the department until they resign, retire or are removed from office. While it's rare, the PD holds the copywrite for the website and its contents, much the same as the Los Angeles Police Department retains control over various use of its name and/or symbols. Such authority is vested in the chief. The Yuba City Police Department is recognized as one of the most technologically advanced agencies of its size in the U.S. We often host visitors from agencies throughout the U.S. and abroad. We are the only municipal police agency in the nation to have gained clearance from the U.S. National Security Agency to act as an area hub for the receipt and dissemination of classified Homeland Security data. While listing in Wikipedia assists significantly in allowing a resource for interested parties to gain detailed background data prior to interviews on techknology and/or Homeland Security topics, I am very willing to be guided by your decisions. If the article is delated, I appreciate the venue as it has helped our agency since its initial posting. Thank you for allowing me to clarify some details. Rdoscherca 02:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially since Xoloz's "probably" is not good enuf, this is a valuable clarification, answering Rick's "why would they need a copyright claim...?" To flesh it out slightly, "in order to control distribution of material" refers in part to what is quite explicit in the statute:
      • the copyright protections everyone knows about apply (contrary to popular belief) even without any copyright notice.
      • the right to have your lawyers paid by the copyright violator when you sue the violator exists only when there is a copyright notice.
      The YCPD lost virtually all its copyright protection (with respect to the bio only) when the chief put the bio under GDFL by his submission, since GDFL gives such broad permission. IMO the mayor or council, and the city attorney, would at most grumble about whether other city officials might infer an unwisely broader precedent from this pretty special case.
      The chief's language about "copywright ... requested" is a little confusing, but i assume he is refering to asserting (or legally, giving notice of) the copyright.
    --Jerzy·t 14:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in to Yuba City. Although I understand RickK's concern, the copyright notice at the bottom of the source page says copyright Yuba City Police Department, not copyright Yuba City. As the Chief of Police, I would expect him to be able to speak for the department. --Unfocused 03:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now on CopyVio
Those who are following this page without following the article have been left without what would seem to be the required notice that the VfD notice has been removed there, and a CopyVio notice put in its place. While my judgement is that the Chief's claim to exercise the copyright holder's power to put this text under VfD should be assumed valid in the absence of contrary evidence that has not been offered, there is IMO no reason not to let this play out on the Copyright problems page; AFAIK it will just come back here in due time, if Rick turns out to be mistaken.
--Jerzy·t 07:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio reverted[edit]

User:Rdoscherca has convinced me that he is the subject of the article and also the Yuba City PD's webmaster. Therefore he seems to be of sufficient authority to release the article and the image to the GFDL, and I have reverted the copyvio boilerplate. RickK 04:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 20:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Yuba City. Per the nominator, I'd like to re-emphasize that the chief should not be accused of "vanity." He's only doing his job as a professional. Basis for delete, if there is one, should be non-encyclopedic. Xoloz 23:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good bredth of info.Tjackson 03:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_J._Doscher&oldid=1083681842"