Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard C. Sanders

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The result was withdrawn . Legal concerns resolved. Notability established with sources over the past hours. Nomination withdrawn.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) (formatting corrected by KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Richard C. Sanders[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed, author deems this notable.

This is an almost exact copy of [1] (U.S. Air Force), but since that is a U.S. government-website written by staff while on duty, I'm assuming I cannot tag it for speedy/copyvio. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two different articles from Time Magazine and one from the New York Times. There appears to be more but because of the time frame it will be a little harder to find. Indication is that there is coverage of him in reliable sources that establishes notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. My question about the text remains. Maybe I wasn't clear enough: Can we just copy-paste everything from the Air Force database into wikipedia? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I do understand your concerns with regards to copyright violation. However the site does give permission to republish “2. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied”, as shown here [2]. Regarding the individual, yes, he is notable by our standards. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 16:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That's the note I was looking for. I kept searching the site for a good half hour and never found it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above, and never mind just the Air Force site - by law, US federal government works (and, by extension, works done by US government employees within the scope of their employment, such as - for example - photos on duty by active service military personnel) cannot be copyrighted. It's a complex bit of business, and looking over the exceptions on WP:PD are worth editors' while, but yes, a straight cut-and-paste from the Air Force bio site should pass muster. That being said, the nom hasn't yet proffered any grounds for deletion. What might they be? RGTraynor 16:33, 18 December 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.