Murph9000, it's worse than you thought. There's copyvio from this 2006 book (and probably elsewhere too) in the first version, another from here in version 488985645. The whole page needs to be checked, and probably rewritten from scratch. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: Oh, that's not good. I've removed my "article cleaned" tag above, so there's no confusion. I'm glad (in quite a disappointed way) that I listed it here. You never know what will crawl out when you kick over a rock. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: RichardWeiss (talk · contribs) has just removed the investigation notice and blanking on the article. Richard, i understand your frustration at it being blanked out, but your unilateral action seems to be incompatible with copyright and licensing issues. The historical copyright violations need to be purged from public view, which means that potentially a considerable amount of the non-infringing CC BY-SA content also needs to be purged. The licensing requirements for CC BY-SA means that attribution must be available, which would not be the case when the edits that added it are hidden. I.e. much of the content from legitimate Wikipedia contributors may be unusable, depending on the outcome of the investigation. Also, please note that your initial revert restored the copyright violation that I removed (but I see you then removed it again). So, some of your new edits will need to be deleted from public view as well. Murph9000 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]