Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTMME
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. CDC (talk) 18:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FTMME[edit]
Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge any useful content with Tengwar. Sarg 18:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --Duk 19:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete No original research, bad title format. I'm not sure about the copyvio, the author says he grants permission, but how can we be sure he's really the author of the geocities document (which, by the way, has a (c) note, not free) drini ☎ 21:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe (IANAL) that it's fine to reserve all rights on one copy and GFDL another copy of one's own work, as long as you don't incorporate later changes to the GFDL version by others into the non-GFDL version. It's just dual-licensing. Of course, it's pretty much impossible to prove that an illegal copy is made of the non-GFDL version instead of a legal copy of the GFDL version, but it allows an author to later release a work previously published with all rights reserved without having to go around changing the copyright notice on old copies. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research, and possibly a copyvio. --Carnildo 22:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. (Possible copyvio as well). Mgm|(talk) 00:56, Jun 3, 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.