Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluto Kuiper Express

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 of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto_Kuiper_Express[edit]

this page is nearly an exact copy of the link included at its "external links" section. Veevee 22:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this a copyvio issue and not an AfD issue? Yanksox 22:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well this certainly could and probably should have been listed at WP:CP, but I don't know of any reason policy rule making it inappropriate to delete it through this process, and it is not uncommon for an article here to first be listed for notability issues, but ultimately to be deleted for an intervening copyvio discovery. Possibly the text should be blanked, as is done with CV articles while this debate brews.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry guys, i guess it should have been listed as copyvio- except i didn't know copyvio existed until now...i'm still a n00b.Veevee 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be sorry! I was just asking out of curiousity. Yanksox 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright. It is intent, not perfect process that matters.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as copyvio. Note that there is no non-violative version to revert to; first edit summary in history is "copied from [url]...--Fuhghettaboutit 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grutness' rewrite and that the subject is patently notable.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does this count as a work of the United States Government? In that case it is not entitled to domestic copyright under U.S.law. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm, interesting question and wish I knew. The page does have a "publication information" link, which lists "Price, H. W., et al., Pluto Express sciencecraft system design, Acta Astronautica, 39, No. 1-4, 207-215, 1996." As listed on your link: "Note that many publications of the U.S. government may contain protectable works authored by others." Still very hard to tell from the webpage who it is authored by. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The publication in Acta Astronautica is a technical article, not this page of summary information written for a general audience. I found this on the NSSDC web site: "In fact, NSSDC cannot copyright images or data, NSSDC distributions are in the public domain" [1]. I'd say that settles the matter. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When the comment was written above, I was already halfway through a substantial re-write. I think it's far enough removed now not to be considered a copyvio. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Grutness rewriting it so it's not a copyvio. Certainly the mission is notable enough to warrant an article. I'm surprised there isn't already one since the mission has been underway for months -- I recommend double-checking to make sure this isn't a duplicate. 23skidoo 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this mission hasn't been underway for months - it was canned. The one that replaced it is (or will shortly be) underway, though. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 29 May 2006 (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.