Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letters and FOIA Requests
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was COPYVIO, no offer of a rewrite. -Splashtalk 23:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopaedic, POV, and nn Tonywalton | Talk 17:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-encylopedic text. --Isotope23 19:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ne. --TimPope 19:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the text of a letter written by someone called John McCarthy. Wikipedia articles are not collections of primary source materials. That's Wikisource's job. This letter was written last month. It is still copyrighted and, according to the copyright notice on the author's web site, not licensed under the GFDL. Thus Wikisource will not accept it. The irony of someone seeking freedom of information, whilst not providing it himself, is poignant. Copyvio. Uncle G 01:17:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
- (Technically FOI has nothing to do with copyright, though there are often some interesting waivers about copyright issues involved. As far as FOI legislation goes, that copyrighted letter on a public page is as free as you could want...). Anyway, delete even if use of material permitted. Shimgray 13:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are construing the phrase "freedom of information" too narrowly. Uncle G 22:25:37, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
- No more narrowly than the context of the article. :-) (Sorry, I've been spending the last few days up to my neck in FOI laws; it's interesting enough, but I tend to react on autopilot when anyone mentions them... on the plus side, a hell of a lot of "Freedom of Information in foo" articles pending in about a month's time) Shimgray 23:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my nomination had nothing to do with its copyright status or lack of it. It's non-encyclopaedic as it's one person's narrow view on what may or may not be the case, it's POV as it's one person's narrow view on what may or may not be the case. If it's copyvo that's potentially another reason. Tonywalton | Talk 23:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No more narrowly than the context of the article. :-) (Sorry, I've been spending the last few days up to my neck in FOI laws; it's interesting enough, but I tend to react on autopilot when anyone mentions them... on the plus side, a hell of a lot of "Freedom of Information in foo" articles pending in about a month's time) Shimgray 23:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are construing the phrase "freedom of information" too narrowly. Uncle G 22:25:37, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
- (Technically FOI has nothing to do with copyright, though there are often some interesting waivers about copyright issues involved. As far as FOI legislation goes, that copyrighted letter on a public page is as free as you could want...). Anyway, delete even if use of material permitted. Shimgray 13:58, 10 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.