Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air brake (road vehicle)

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air brake (road vehicle)

Air brake (road vehicle) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Verbatim copy of chapter 5 of the California Commercial Driver Handbook, therefore violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook and possibly copyright DES 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The lead paragraph was the only part of the article that was not tainted from the beginning by copyright violation, so I left that, but removed the bulk of the article. I think it's a decent stub. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Note that although an early edit by Interiot (talk · contribs) asserted that it was in the public domain, the PDF online clearly includes a copyright notice for the California DMV. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep now that it's been reduced to a stub removing copyvio. DWaterson 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (if for no other reason that it'll explain what the roadsigns that say "Air Brakes Prohibited" are referring to), but someone needs to selectively delete the copyvio tainted revisions. humblefool® 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Consensus seems to be that relegation to history is generally sufficient (especially in this sort of case, where there is no economic factor). The backlog at WP:CP is so great I'd rather someone spent time dealing with more pressing issues. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject is notable enough to have its own article. The fact that it contained a copyvio (which has subsequently been removed along with corrections to it) does not make the subject undeserving of an article. --Athol Mullen 22:22, 9 October 2007 (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.