Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dracunculiasis

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 KEEP. But cleanup. -Splash 19:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dracunculiasis

More or less verbatim plagerism from the CDC site on the topic Scott.wheeler 08:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conservare, but un-copyvio. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Clean. Works-for-hire for the federal government are PD, but it would be more polite to give a brief summary and keep the CDC link. Eldereft 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What is the problem?--BirgitteSB 19:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that it was verbatim copied (and this wasn't actually noted). At any rate, I think it's far to do as Elderleft suggested. Scott.wheeler 05:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an informative, accurate article. Why should it be removed? Perhaps it could be stated differently to this page it has apparently been plaugerized from, but still it should stay.138.130.214.5 10:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When looking for information on plagerized articles it suggested first deleting an article and then recreating it so that the plagerized version did not remain in the WP history. Since this content seems to be PD, then that's probably not a necessary middle step. Scott.wheeler 06:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Clean Lots of useful info could be summarized down to a paragraph or so, and then a link to the original source provided. Or chunks could be quoted? Not worth throwing away. Ramk13 20:29, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.