Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force Combat Control

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 as copyvio. Nothing has been done since the AfD was started. No prejudice to re-creation, of course. ELIMINATORJR 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Combat Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is almost entirely copyright violation, copied from http://www.usafcct.com and http://www.specialtactics.com Ward3001 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While it might be a rip of other sites content the subject of the article is notable and easily sourced. I'll add it to my list of stuff I want to rewrite and clean up. This means I might get around to it a few months. Take that how you will but a simple stub can be sourced with a single trip to a DoD or AF website (which hold no copyrights really) and with some rewording it will meet both WP:V and WP:N. NeoFreak 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that this article is in a rancid state and needs to be thoroughly cleaned out before it is in anything close to a good state. Nevertheless the topic appears to be encyclopedic and verifiable. I might try improving it a little myself .. if I can convince myself to find the time :) Please note that if no one (myself included) does improve it then it probably is safe to delete and just have someone re-create after the fact. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment isn't the correct procedure to bring this to WP:CV and follow the instructions there? (ie template:db-copyvio or template:copyvio) 70.55.85.118 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Afd and WP:CV are OK, but if nothing is done to the article soon it needs to be deleted. For legal reasons, Wikipedia should not have such blatant copyvio of an entire article sitting unfixed for months or, in this case, years. Ward3001 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and re-create without the copyvio. We cannot keep a copyvio article while improvements are pending. The lede paragraph is just a copy from the first source listed. DGG (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'll edit it within the next week. Can't promise it will be much better, but it won't be copyrighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuckles5492 (talk • contribs) 18:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I have known only one "Air Force Ninja" in my 20+ years of govt service and they dont have the time and wont take the time to edit wikipedia. I vote "KEEP" and get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.36.19 (talk • contribs)

Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, and there are rules about copyright violation. You get over it. Ward3001 23:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.