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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-29. The result of the prior discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Copyvio issues; also per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, especially when the links add up to one giant WP:NPOV violation. A reasonable small NPOV stub/article could be made about this organization, but right now the page only exists to advertise the group's press releases and thus push their POV, and judging from the page history, nobody appears to be interested in fixing the article. --Aaron 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable. Sockatume 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I noticed that most of the article after the first paragraph is a verbatim copy of the website so I added a copyvio notice. Suttungr 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thanks for noticing that, Suttungr. I've added the copyvio problem to my nomination above. --Aaron 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a CopyVio The copied text is from a page with a GNU Free Documentation License at the bottom of the page. As long as it hasn't been modified (and if it's verbatim as you state, it hasn't by definition), there's no copyright to violate. *Sparkhead 01:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sparkhead's right, Suttungr's wrong; it's GFDL content. I've struck my copyvio argument up top and will put the article back as it was. --Aaron 01:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, proposal does not assert NN, so not clear if NN is being claimed, but in any case, as per last discussion of deletion, group is clearly notable, with references in AP, NY Times and foxnews.com. Second, if links and any copyright violations are removed, remaining text does not seem to be WP:NPOV, and even if it is, that's not grounds for deletion, just edits. Simon12 18:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would have no particular objection to a properly WP:NPOV article without the giant list of links at the bottom. Unfortunately, the article seems to have been abandoned since the first AfD, so I didn't think there was any choice but to put it up for AfD again. But now that it's stuck in copyvio limbo, we may just have to sit on this AfD until an admin makes a decision regarding the copyright issue. --Aaron 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you think "a reasonable small NPOV stub/article could be made" about them, then you shouldn't be nominating this for AFD, you should be editing it. That no one else is fixing it is irrelevant. Not to mention that the site that this is a "copyvio" of is released under the GFDL. Recury 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and verifiable. Can be rewritten to remove any copyvio, since information and facts are not subject to copyright. Edison 20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even without editing, the paragraph that's now above the copyvio warning would be an acceptable stub. JamesMLane t c 07:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The nom himself states the article is salvagable. So clean it up or put a note in it. Nominating it for deletion is not the proper course of action.. *Sparkhead 01:23, 6 October 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.