Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid breathing

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 and remove infringing information where appropriate. Krimpet (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid breathing[edit]

Disputed speedy delete.

At 15:21, 2 June 2007 User:ElbridgeGerry blanked page Liquid breathing and tagged it "speedy delete copyvio of http://web.archive.org/web/20050318045848/http://www.scienceweb.org/movies/abyss.html". But:-
- How much of page Liquid breathing is allegedy copyvio? Many people have worked on page Liquid breathing.
- Is any of it copyvio, or did the outside web site copy from Wikipedia?

Page Liquid breathing has existed since 02:19, 11 November 2003.

Anthony Appleyard 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...keep? - no stated reason for deletion. Article looks quite well done so unless there's some glaring flaw that I'm missing, keep it. Otto4711 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Otto4711's reply was a reply to an incomplete version of my initial AfD as I was still editing it. I reverted User:ElbridgeGerry's blanking of Liquid breathing so people can see the text that we are discussing. Anthony Appleyard 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup copyvio and keep the article. There seems to be indeed a fair bit of copyvio in the article, especialy in the 'early experiments' and 'later developement' sections, but there is more then enough to keep the article. It does need some speedy cleanup of the copyvio information, but it has the potential for a fine article Martijn Hoekstra 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup - investigate copyvio and remove, but the page should continue to exist as it documents a notable concept in medicine. Freedomlinux 16:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the removal of copyvios. Otto4711 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with removal of copyvios if necessary. Article claims permission to use the disputed material. Cryobiologist 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feel free to remove material which duplicates word-for-word (rather than simply repeats explanations) of that in other articles. THIS article has had much added to it which is not to be found in the movie article (some of it by researchers in this area, such as myself), and the movie stuff has been mostly removed. So improve, don't delete. S B H arris 17:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of the article is a copyvio. Obviously, we need to remove the copyrighted material immediately. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and cleanup per above users -- has anyone ever used the term "snowball keep" before? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:50, 2 June 2007 (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.