Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton's Letter to ROTC Instructor


 * 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 of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikisource. -Splash talk 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Clinton's Letter to ROTC Instructor
The article is almost entirely made up of unaltered source texts with a bit of personal editorializing mixed in. The substantive issues belong in Bill Clinton. The rest of the content might be an outside candidate for a transwiki to Wikisource, but.... that's not for me to decide. Tom Lillis 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (I failed to sign this the first time.)

Nonsense. The letters are far too long to place in the Clinton bio. Keep. Just looked at the bio of the person who recommended this article for deletion and recommend everyone considering this AfD do the same. No one, from the right or the left, should accept or promote censorship here. That type of "editing" has no place in Wikipedia. Shame on you if that is your motivation. --DaveThomas 07:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "The substantive issues belong in Bill Clinton." I said. You're right, the letters don't belong in Bill Clinton.  A discussion of the matter which is illustrated by the letters belong in the article.  Wikipedia is not a repository of source documents.  As for the documents themselves, I again state that the material belongs on Wikisource if anywhere, but I am not an expert on how that works.  This is a matter of following our own internal rules on what goes where.  Censorship has blip-all to do with it, and I'd ask you to use more care before casting shame upon others in the future.  Tom Lillis 10:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or TransWiki. This is not encyclopedic. Zunaid 10:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  10:03, Jan. 20, 2006
 * Transfer to Wikisource. Gazpacho 11:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Transfer. Per above. --StuffOfInterest 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per Gazpacho. KrazyCaley 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per above, and well put Tom Lillis. Draeco 00:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: letters are protected by copyright; it would likely be a copyvio to put them on WikiSource, but I don't know what their policies are. They certainly don't belong here. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Letters are protected by copyright, but I think these actually came out of the Congressional Record, which is public domain. Tricky, which is why I'm not sure.  Tom Lillis 06:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikisource. The article consists of primary sources and a short essay.  The primary sources go to Wikisource, the essay gets deleted and its salient facts WRT the primary sources edited into Bill Clinton. silsor 07:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per above. Cyde Weys  05:26, 24 January 2006 (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.