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. Sandstein 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Space Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This Article is entirely plagiarized from https://fas.org/spp/military/program/track/spasur_at.htm, with that plagiarized article being the only source.Garuda28 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as this blatant plagiarism is not only encyclopedic, but also is only from the single source on the article. Garuda28 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note really need to mention/tag this discussion on the actual article so it is visible to interested parties, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't even realize I didn't do that yet.Garuda28 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment government military websites are public domain so if that site copied the material from govt website then it is not copyvio. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: The information copied was from the Federation of American Scientists, which is not a government institution.Garuda28 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But did the FAS copy public domain material ? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely cited it (given the footnotes). Given that these sites are now all offline I see nothing that suggests that they copied it. Garuda28 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article as it was an existing military command, but delete any content that violates copyright. If that turns out to be everything, then leave what bare-bones is left with a "military stub" tag. - ^theWOLFchild 21:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it gets blanked due to lack of copyright/sourcing would you support transition to a redirect to the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, since that’s it’s successor and well sourced? Garuda28 (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - What is the date on the FAS article? This article dates back to 2011 - is it possible FAS copied from us? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the date, but I’d say that’s not likely. In their format it’s common to have URLs at the end as citation, but ours. We see in the article that URLs are listed in the end of sections in the same format. Plus the FAS one has significantly more information. Also there are no citations other than the FAS on on our article, whereas the FAS one has numerous citations to websites that don’t appear to have been online (such as SPACOM) since the early 2000s.Garuda28 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The organization is notable. Deletion is not cleanup. If there is a copyvio, stub it down, however I believe this IS NOT A COPYVIO as it is a copy of www.spacecom.af.mil in 2002 (that FAS copied) - and that seems to be a government website whose contents are generally public domain as US government work.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubify. The subject is clearly notable, the only concern is that it is not well referenced, and possible copyvio exists. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is notable. No evidence of copyvio. Okay to copy a PD source; this can be noted with a ((Include-USGov)) template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfD is to establish an article's notability as a topic, not the quality of the article itself. This topic is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I completely agree with editor Necrothesp. This article meets WP:GNG. It may need to be adjusted at the stub level, as cited above; but it should not be a subject for AfD. Ventric (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Copy-Paste Tag added with links! 12--Safe My Edit (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a copyvio, copied from gvmt web site www.spacecom.af.mil in 2002.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2018 (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.