Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress: Its Law and Cause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Progress: Its Law and Cause[edit]
Essayistic, copy-paste from an unverified source. (nomination is by Oliverkeenan)
- Delete for reasons afforementioned. Oliver Keenan 13:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It is an excerpt from some old textbook on evolution, old enough for copyrights to have expired I think. But not an article, and title is not good enough for a redirect. Sjakkalle 13:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Ditto. Mwanner 13:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Herbert Spencer is an important thinker, positively seminal in some respects, and this was the title of an important article of his, marking a stage in the consolidation of his ideas in the late 1850s. Not problem with copyvio given the age, but I agree its unencyclopedic just to give a huge block of that article. Instead, there should be a paraphrase of the article, along with an explanation of its context in terms of English history and Spencer's biography. Clean-up, in other words, not deletion. --Christofurio 02:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) (Am I a hopeless inclusionist yet)?
It's a copyvio, as was clearly stated at the bottom of the page. RickK 05:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- It is obvious that the head and foot of the article is a copyvio, the middle of the text is an excerpt from a 19th century textbook. Have not copyrights expired by then? Sjakkalle 07:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.