Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence for treating ill or injured crew members


 * 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   delete. If somebody really wants to wikisource this, they can ask for a restoration.  Sandstein  06:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence for treating ill or injured crew members

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Copy and paste from a NASA paper. Wikipedia is not a collection of public domain material. May belong on Wikisource. MER-C 03:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious copy-and-paste. This is not an encyclopedia article. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Not encyclopedic. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikisource per nom.— S Marshall T/C 12:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Send to Wikisource as above, this definitely appears to simply be a transposition of the NASA paper. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  Talk 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete if based on a copy & paste. The topic itself is notable. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with copypastes if it's public domain. Problem is that it's not an encyclopedic article or topic. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * delete there is potentially some useful data that might be included in other articles (which articles is unclear to me), but this is not an encyclopedia article (it is a research study). Nor is it evident that it could be turned into an encyclopedia article (Injuries suffered by astronauts ??) without essentially nuking it and starting from scratch anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep 10 out of 10 spaceflight editors think we need more of this, zomg. Penyulap  ☏  15:56, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are those 10 editors? Have them enter and sign in, please. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, fairly stated, you are quite right. :) We have an article which is red-linking all by itself Vs I should not state 10 editors when they haven't been asked about this. Still, it seems today is the day for making empty claims, TheRedPenOfDoom claims a conflict of interest where nothing is so much as suggested, except the empty claim itself, before it was claims of copyright  , now it's unencyclopaedic and where is the substance to the claim ? Actually, I'd push to have July proclaimed empty claims month, but this is wikipedia, so it's year-round really. There is a smart, dedicated, polite editor who wants to assist filling in the huge gaping holes in spaceflight articles, and the only consensus I can see here is you think playing wack-a-mole with a newbie is the best way to build wikipedia, everyone prefers voting to helping but hey I'm good, I like a good consensus too. Heck, I'll vote along with you, see if I don't. Penyulap   ☏  05:19, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * delete no chance anyone besides me wants to continue to give the newbie tips which they then follow and apply, so lets just give up. I feel like a puppy in the middle of the night joining a chorus of barking without reason when I say "UNENCYCLOPAEDIC" "UNENCYCLOPAEDIC" "UNENCYCLOPAEDIC"..... "UNENCYCLOPAEDIC"... "DELETE" Penyulap   ☏  05:19, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * And if anyone wants to deny me my right to vote delete, even without any backing for the claim, I'll go with the even more popular argument, oft used by admins and non-admins alike, "If this many editors say it's unencyclopaedic, then it must be, mustn't it." Penyulap  ☏  05:24, 19 Jul 2012 (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.