Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)

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The result was nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure over one delete !vote per WP:IAR as the consensus is that the subject passes WP:N) Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)[edit]

Blatant copyvio of http://adph.org/administration/assets/guidetoservices.pdf by WP:SPA. Author removed my WP:CSD G12 tag. Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tim, thank you for keeping an eye out for such matters. Besides the speedy template, there's also Template:Copyvio, which I just slapped on the article. (I hope I did so correctly and justifiably!) Drmies (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I renamed this article at the same time you were creating the AFD—sorry! It's now at Alabama Department of Public Health, and I've changed the above to include that as well.

OTOH, I'm not sure that Alabama state government documents are protected by copyright, and I note that there is no copyright claimed on the PDF (yes, there is automatic copyright for anything put online, but that's not always the case for taxpayer-funded works, and I don't know what the status of this is). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dori, that's why I put the disclaimer in my note above... The nice thing about those templates is, as far as I understand it, that some of our best geeks will look at it and make that determination (User:Moonriddengirl has been of great assistance to me in these matters). So I propose just letting this thing play out for assessment by the WP copyvio cats. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me: if this does not stand as a copyvio, then I vote delete--the article has nothing of note, which stands to reason, since the department is hardly notable. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a large agency within a US state, easily notable. The copyvio issue is seperate problem. In general, documents published online by the US or state governments are not copyrighted. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I'm making no judgement call on the copyright issue. I don't doubt that a state agency isn't notable, or that it cannot otherwise be the subject of an encyclopedic article. Most all of the material within the page at the time it was nominated reads like promotion and needs a complete rewrite from an encyclopedic standpoint, but this can be easily stubbified and allowed to expand properly. Them From Space 02:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For federal government works, yes, there is no copyright. WP:COPYRIGHT, however, states that "Also, most state and local governments in the United States do not place their work into the public domain and do in fact own the copyright to their work. Please be careful to check copyright information before copying." I agree that stubbify is probably appropriate here and that this agency should easily pass WP:N. Mea culpa. I withdraw the nomination and will stubbify the article. Tim Song (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2009 (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.