Talk:Coleman Land Records in North Carolina

Speedy Delete [18 March 2013]

The abstracts of the deed records were typed by me from Stephen Bradley's book as stated on this page. I own the book and did not steal them from the site as you stated. I am surprised that the idea that someone else may have had access to this book never occurred to you. Hello Coleman cousin. --Beth 07:58, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

Beth,

It is most suspicious to see a large excerpt of Coleman-specific information that I've had online for years suddenly appearing elsewhere in search engines. It would still be a good idea for this page to be deleted from this site since the same information appears in the context of many more Coleman research materials found on my site specific to this location and time period. To post this one set of data here brings Coleman researchers using Internet search engines to this one list of deed records, whereas previously, it would have taken them to my site and a greater wealth of related information. Wes Coleman--Wdcoleman 10:06, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

I added these deed abstracts in 2008. If you check the page history you can verify that fact. I am a descendant of Francis Coleman who was also in Fairfield County before migrating to Georgia and the Mississippi Territory in 1799. Your request for deletion of this page will be reviewed and decided on by the committee. I am not serving on this committee. I am fine with whatever they decide. Have a great weekend. Beth Gay --Beth 10:21, 16 March 2013 (EDT) I added a link to your site on the article page.--Beth 10:41, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

I am one member of the Speedy Delete committee. Here's my two cents:

• I have been familiar with Beth's work on WeRelate for years, and fully trust her integrity; if she says she abstracted from her own copy of the book-- which she makes fully clear and cites here (moreso than Wes's page does for that matter)-- I believe her.
• order of appearance of articles in search engine results is insufficient reason to delete a page
• in good, collaborative spirit, Beth has added a link to Wes's page.

For these reasons, I vote against deletion of this WR article.

THAT said, I think both of you need to examine relevant copyright law to determine if you've abstracted TOO much from a non-public domain source. I'm not familiar enough with copyright law to advise on specifics, but my first reaction was, "whoah... does this much info pulled from a 1995 publication make this a copyright violation?" IF you've extracted too much, then BOTH of your pages should be deleted.

Jillaine 00:28, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

I would vote to remove this page or significantly reduce the amount of text included.

Since this book was published after 1978, the contents are subject to copyright. As stated on WR's Help:Licensing page: "Extensive quotations (greater than 200 words) will be subject to deletion." --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:28, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

but no one quote is more than 200 words. They and we need to understand the relevance of copyright law to this particular circumstance. Jillaine 08:14, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

I consulted with Judy Russell, The Legal Genealogist, and she concurs that this is too much information copied from the book and does violate fair use. The 200 word rule is not applicable in this case. Therefore, I have removed the deed abstracts from the page. Thanks for your help.--Beth 12:37, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

Beth, thanks for consulting with Judy Russell. and for removing the copyrighted text. You basically now have an empty article. Should we go ahead and delete it?

Is there a way to change the speedy delete reason to something besides what it currently says about "stolen" from Wes Coleman's site. That's not accurate at all, and I don't want that to be in the history as the reason the page was deleted.

And Wes, we can't control your pages, but you should be aware that you are violating copyright on your own web site.

Jillaine 12:16, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

Hi Jillaine,

Yes, you may delete the page. This is one of my earlier ideas that has not shown any fruition, so yes delete. I don't know how to change the speedy delete template unless you edit the text. Maybe someone on the committee can edit the text, but I don't think I should since I am the one accused. --Beth 12:28, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

Done. Although I see this talk page is still here.--Jillaine 18:33, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

Yes, it is still here. Since you deleted the page I can't see the changes that you made in the template. I don't know how to find and read a deleted page. I assume one should also delete the related talk page, but reply first before deletion. Thanks so much for your support.--Beth 19:22, 18 March 2013 (EDT)