Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor (US TV series)


 * 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 Speedy keep. There's no violation at all, so I am closing this nomination. About the nominator, I assume good faith, he looks like a novice here. --Angelo (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Survivor (US TV series)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete GFDL violation from Survivor (TV series).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

--As3x (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly speedily: I don't see what the GFDL violation is here, and we can fix up copy-and-paste problems if necessary. Not a reason for deletion. --Pak21 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, apart from the delete claim having no basis this account existed for ten minutes before making this which seems well... odd. –– Lid(Talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand the violation that is being cited at all; perhaps As3x can elaborate? Xymmax (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, I split off text from Survivor (TV series) to this to address WP:SIZE issues, and I've seen most of what's been added to that and this page, and I really don't understand where there's even a GFDL violation, or where even such information would have already been found in GDFL. --M ASEM  14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that, given only the Survivor (US TV series) page, how am I supposed to find out who the major authors were, as is required by the GFDL? --Pak21 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Looks like a bad faith nomination I'm afraid to say. Pedro : Chat  14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Where is the violation? KnightLago (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep violation not clarified. Bad faith nom Doc Strange (talk)


 * 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.