Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Gulf War Veterans Association


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep, edited to remove copyright violation. NawlinWiki 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

American Gulf War Veterans Association

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

What is the rationale for its deletion? Anyways, I vote for a "weak keep" since the topic gets over 10,000 google hits and since the Gulf War Syndrome controversy is still notable and ongoing. Revolutionaryluddite 05:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is an important topic. Anthony Appleyard 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, WP:CSD Possible copyright infringement from the subject's mission statement at its webpage: AGWVA Mission Statement. The article has remained basically unchanged in content since its creation (10-29-2006), with no other info other than the mission statement (not even in the intro), and therefore unsalvageable. Subject is notable, so should be recreated using original contributions with reliable sources. - Mtmelendez (Talk 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't the aritcle survive the AfD if it is notable? Any POV and/or copyright problems would presumably be corrected after the vote. Revolutionaryluddite 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends. The concern is/was that the article was a copy-vio. Even if you blank the page and start a new article, that copyrighted material will still be available in the edit history, which some of the copyrighted owners might object. Deleting and recreating the article will give it a "fresh start", since previous versions of the article (the copyvio ones) will not be a available for previous editors. Please take note that I advocate its existence, and therefore said that the admin who deletes it should then recreate it, even as a stub. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as copyvio, well-sourced recreation encouraged. shoy  14:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Buckshot06 17:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand Since the organisation is clearly notable, i stubbified it to remove the copyvio. Now needs references and expansion. Almost nothing is unsalvageable, since WP:STUBs are acceptable content. DGG (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this was recommended procedure, as per Copyright problems: Rewrite the article, excluding copyrighted text. This is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the original, copyright-infringing version can be deleted by an administrator and the rewrite copied over. If the original turns out to be non-infringing, these two can be merged. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The head of the organization co-narrated the documentary "Beyond Treason" with has its own page. That article should be merged into this one if this one survives. Revolutionaryluddite 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The head of the organization has been quoted in a CBS News story, a Los Angeles Chronicle article , and a PBS article . If this page survives, should those articles be mentioned in the page? Revolutionaryluddite 04:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep stub and expand per DGG. Avb 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's now a stub that's not a copyvio, but still of a notable organization. --Oakshade 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.