Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Porting Vectorsite articles


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep unanimously. Xoloz 12:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Porting Vectorsite articles
This page originally coordinated addition of content from Vectorsite.net, whose owner gave his blessing to users who wished to do so. However, the user has since decided that he would prefer not to be associated directly with Wikipedia, although he states that "if they want to leverage off anything I've written, great!". The page no longer has any reason to exist without said collaboration; it provides no useful information or ideas to future editors (as inactive policies or proposals do).

The owner of the website attempted to blank the page himself in good faith, but was reverted. He has since emailed the Foundation information email address requesting its deletion, and I see no reason not to grant his request. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I favor delete as a courtesy to a former collaborator; however, since the site owner placed his site content in the public domain, he must be aware that anything so posted is still able to be integrated into Wikipedia. Xoloz 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep per others below. Xoloz 12:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as historical page. This page prevented me from marking Charles Ponzi as a 2-year-old copyvio, which would have been a huge hassle. I removed all references that might be interpreted as endorsement of Wikipedia. Ashibaka tock 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you mark an article as violating the copyright of a public domain source? // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because some website says "I wrote this and it's in the public domain" doesn't mean it's true. This page serves as a reference and record of correspondence with the author. Ashibaka tock 22:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but modify as per Ashibaka. From the page, there is no reason for anyone to suppose that Greg Goebel is associated with Wikipedia beyond the undeniable facts that some of us have used his public domain material, and that he's not opposed to it. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:37, 4 May 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.