Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Livingston

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:05 (UTC)

Jessica Livingston
Added on behalf of Wetman. He/she marked this article for speedy deletion. IMO, it doesn't match any speedy criteria, so I'm adding it to VfD instead. Abstain for now. (I may come back and vote later.) &mdash; Bcat (talk | email) 02:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio: Compare Wikipedia article to text source. &mdash; Bcat (talk | email) 02:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio, also not notable enough for inclusion. A partner in a not-established-as-notable seed money company funding startups.  Barno 17:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable -Harmil 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The legal info for the Y combinator site says that the partners' bios are in the public domain. Sat Jun 25 16:42:04 EDT 2005 [Unsigned comment by 67.95.134.234 ].
 * Where? It says: "Site (c) 2005 Y Combinator." Nowhere does it state that the content is public domain. &mdash; Bcat (talk | email) 21:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The page reads "Site (c) 2005 Y Combinator, except the partners' bios, which are in the public domain." [Unsigned comment by 67.95.134.234 ]
 * You're right, it does. I was looking at a cached version of the page. Sorry about that. My vote is now delete as vanity. &mdash; Bcat (talk | email) 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here's some history for those just coming to this VfD, and also a request for help. 67.180.141.230 created the page using content from . Wetman marked it for speedy deletion as vanity. I removed the speedy notice and added the page to VfD on his behalf. I then commented here that I thought this was a copyright violation. Pburka replaced the page with a copyvio notice and added it to Copyright problems. User:67.180.141.230 then commented here and on the copyvio page that the site's legal policy had been changed to place the content that was in the article into the public domain. At this point, I'm not sure if I should revert the copyvio notice or not. &mdash; Bcat (talk | email) 00:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a copyvio, but it should be deleted--nixie 3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.