Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was redirect to Standard license violation letter &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Closing instructions

Standard GFDL violation letter
No longer applicable. Completely superseded by Standard license violation letter and Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter, because as of the relicensing, nothing is under just the GFDL anymore (if I understand correctly). -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Standard license violation letter so that people who are used to the GFDL one will get more easily directed to the proper one. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 23:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded - good idea. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per harej, and indirectly per nom. GFDL alone is no longer the only license and the Standard license violation letter covers both GFDL and CC. Redirect, rather than deletion, is required due to CC-BY-SA and/or GFDL licensing of the original letter. — Becksguy (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Historicalize or Redirect per nom. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:17, 9 July 2009 (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.