Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 January


 * 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. I'm refusing to merge 10 articles I'm not familiar with into a condensed version as the result of an AfD. Normally, I'd just let another admin do the job, but let's be realistic, this is more work than ANY admin should be asked to do. The info is on the web, anyone who wants to work on condensing it and writing original text may do so. Mango juice talk 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 January
Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Also reads like a straight copy and paste from somewhere. Possible copyvio? Resolute 07:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:
 * Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 February
 * Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 March
 * Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 April
 * Opportunity rover timeline for 2005 March
 * Spirit rover timeline for 2004 January
 * Spirit rover timeline for 2004 February
 * Spirit rover timeline for 2004 April
 * Spirit rover timeline for 2004 March

Resolute 07:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite the whole timeline - they would make a good complement to the existing rover articles and the articles on the places they visited if done correctly. At the moment, they are just a copy and paste from the status reports at NASA's Mars rovers website . MER-C 08:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge them into 2 articles (one each for oppotunity and spirit), or just merge them into the original rovers' respective pages. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Opportunity rover timeline for 2005 March section, is from here. I haven't got time to chase the rest of the articles up but the start of this one is copyvio. The source of the other material needs checking before this is kept. BlueValour 20:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, if I'm a allowed a vote as the relister. This is just way, way too detailed information for an encyclopedia. There's a point where you have to say, if a really serious researcher needs minutae about a particular subject they'll have to find it off this Wiki, and we should provide links to that material. We can't swallow the entire world wide web. (As to copyvio, you'd think this would have come from NASA and thus be public domain, but a quick string search does indeed bring back only the private site [, so I don't know what's up with that.) [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Into a single generalised timeline. Useful and interesting information. However the copyvio poses a major problem. LinaMishima 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove most of it and merge the most important aspects to the main article. Delete the rest and link the timelines on NASA's site at the bottom of the main article.   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Recommend merge into a single timeline. Monthly breakdowns aren't needed.  Copyvio issues need to be taken care of.  I do not recommend a delete, however, unless we can preserve the basic facts somewhere for the creation of a master timeline. Kevin_b_er 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the work in doing this is going to be enormous. Checking down the text for copyvios will take long enough. Unless someone is happy to undertake this I stll think that deletion followed by the creation of a single timeline article, if anyone wants to do this, is the cleanest solution. BlueValour 01:53, 3 August 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.