Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. moink 07:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth Federation, Image:Commfed2.gif, Image:Canzukmilitary.PNG, Image:Canzuknavy.PNG

Many reasons. Original research plus complete lack of citations. Plus Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this definitely falls into that catagory, i.e. advocacy of a new idea. Very unencyclopedic. Sounds like a position paper to me. No place for it here. --Woohookitty 23:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE 1: Image:Commfed2.gif MUST BE DELETED alongside the article or it will become an orphan.
NOTE 2: Image:Canzukmilitary.PNG MUST BE DELETED alongside the article or it will become an orphan.
NOTE 3: Image:Canzuknavy.PNG MUST BE DELETED alongside the article or it will become an orphan.
  • Speedy Delete, now found to be copyvio, all of the reasons above, not noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which some of this proposal sounds like. Master Thief Garrett 23:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor a place for crackpot theories (unless they happen to be rather popular crackpot theories). If the images will become orphans, they can be listed at WP:IFD as such and will be deleted, probably without any objections. android↔talk 00:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the article looks like it's going bye bye, I will post the images to IFD. Thanks for the heads up, Android79. --Woohookitty 00:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • But isn't it better to have the sysop/admin delete the page and the images in one fell swoop, rather than having a separate report for the images??? Master Thief Garrett 00:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but articles with images that would become orphans after deletion of the article aren't really all that common on VfD. Might as well used the established process for image deletion. android↔talk 00:41, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. copyvio http://www.fcscanada.com/federation-proposal.htm - Stoph 00:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete the images too. - Stoph 00:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Added copyvio notice and replaced the Vfd header with my customised one which clarifies the rules conflicts. Crazy, I only just customised that header yesterday and it's already come in handy again... Master Thief Garrett 01:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanman2010 What if I got permission to publish the information? Which I do I was trying to support the webpage.

  • It may still be considered original research, but it would be better if you have permission. Note that the original VfD did not mention any copyright violation, but other concerns. (also, sign your comments at the end instead of the beginning with four tildes: ~~~~) - Stoph 04:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote reserved pending copyright status If permission to use the content is given, I would like to this article improved with other sources. The person heading this has a well organized effort. I would certainly not view the ideology as 'crackpot'. One need only look at Gran Colombia to see a similar idea that worked in the past. I would like to know however what happens if the copyright situation gets cleared up? Will that even matter in the time frame that is now left? - Diskadia 06:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, the fact that the idea has worked in the past doesn't mean it's not crackpot. It's still a proposal...it's still an attempt to look into a crystal ball...both are against Wikipedia policy. So even if its not a copyvio, it should still go bye bye. Several reasons for this to go...not just copyvio. --Woohookitty 07:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Fair enough delete it then. Apparantly this was published before but some people deleted it so no point doing it twice.Vanman2010
  • Delete. The copyright status does not look like it will be resolved. - Diskadia 01:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? I mean, can't an admin just email the originator for their approval/confirmation?? Master Thief Garrett 03:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, this is not a do or die issue. Even if it isn't a copyvio, it's a proposal trying to look into the crystal ball and Wikipedia doesn't want that. So it doesn't really matter people. :) --Woohookitty 04:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not the right median. Its a copy vio issue use that page not here. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It's well on its way to deletion, nearing its fifth day on VfD, without a single keep vote. Listing it at CP would mean it would take longer to get deleted – in my experience, it's taken much longer than five days for anything I've listed on CP to get taken care of. android↔talk 02:22, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.