Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was N/A (issue resolved outside VfD, nothing to vote) jni 13:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter
In accordance with wikipedia's Copyright Violation Policy this page should be deleted and replace with its temp non-copied version. --BerserkerBen 19:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This should be listed on Copyright problems, not here. Gamaliel 19:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it is listed but nothing has been done about it. --BerserkerBen 23:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that there is a significant backlog on Copyright problems. That's no reason to clutter this page further. Gamaliel 23:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, if and when copyvio is resolved. @ Megan1967 23:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Base on the poor speed of how copyright violations get solved I am hoping this could be fixed before launch, as then people are going to want to check on this site for information on it, and find this rather trashed page that will reflect poorly on wikipedia.--BerserkerBen 23:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. if copyright problems are fixed. Capitalistroadster 09:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: What copyvio? Comparing the last pre-copyvio-tagged version with the space.com article, the only text in common seems to be the photo caption: The orbiter's shallow radar experiment, one of six science instruments on board, is designed to probe the internal structure of Mars' polar ice caps, as well as to gather information planet-wide about underground layers of ice, rock and, perhaps, liquid water that might be accessible from the surface.  But this is not space.com's wording, it is NASA's: see .  I believe NASA's wording is public-domain.  So we now have two perfectly good articles that need to be merged. -- Curps 05:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * great, so can someone merge them? --BerserkerBen 06:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, when copy-vio problem is countered of course. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I have moved all the data from the temp over to the orginal in accordence with Curps plan for merger. Deletion and replacemnet with the temp is no longer needed now as the copyright problem has been solved(?). All that this needs now is to delete the temp (or merge it, which ever)--BerserkerBen 07:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two versions (original non-copyright-infringing and new Temp) have now been merged. BerserkerBen has removed his own VfD notice from the page.

This vote is now moot. -- Curps 07:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.