Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.O. 21M-LGM25C-1


 * 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   Userfy because the article creator has agreed that Wikisource is an appropriate location for this information, and has requested that it be userfied as a convenience; no !votes appear to conflict with this course of action (early closure, non-admin closure). VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

T.O. 21M-LGM25C-1

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is simply a text copy of a manual bought in a museum shop. It is not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Perhaps it would be appropriate for Wikibooks? Peacock (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Peacock (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
 * Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. I assume that as an official work of the US government, apparently the manual for a missile, this doesn't pose a copyright issue.  I have removed what appeared to be a copyrighted introduction from a museum curator. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiSource. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference for manuals or how-tos. If this is a genuine military manual, it will be public domain as a work of the US Government. While it might be a good source for LGM-25C Titan II, it shouldn't be an independant article.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: It seems that the original author is amenable to an alternative to keeping the article as seen at User talk:VQuakr.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a wikisourcer, this sounds like a good candidate for WS. We'll want page scans to be uploaded to Commons, if possible. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  19:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Author's notes
Thank you for your ideas regarding this "non-article"; I accept that we all may have different ideas about what is relevant to Wikipedia. Boldly Go, as has been said, by Jimmy Wales no less. Now can I request that you don't delete sections of my work without prior notification? If I move the whole work to my user page, then it cannot violate any copyright can it? And can someone tell me (a Wiki newbie) about Wikibooks? It was suggested to me that WikiLeaks might be suitable, but they seem to have gone underground of late. Dwarner30uk (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't get the wrong idea. Your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia are appreciated.  Starting the article as you did is completely within the spirit of Wikipedia, even if the community decides here that it is not quite right for the type of encyclopedia we are building.  To answer your questions, if text is copyrighted, it doesn't matter what type of page it appears on, it is still not permitted on Wikipedia (with a few exceptions outlined at Non-free content).  You can read our articles on Wikibooks and Wikisource to learn a bit more about those websites.  For specific help about whether the information at T.O. 21M-LGM25C-1 would be appropriate for either of those sites, you'll probably have to ask there.  Peacock (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (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.