Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Freedom of Information Act 2000/...

Freedom of Information Act 2000/...
All the pages Freedom of Information Act 2000/anything should be moved to WikiSource, I think. They're not textbooks. I'm not sure if WS covers legislative text, but WB certainly doesn't. Take a look at a few:
 * Freedom of Information Act 2000/Part 1c
 * Freedom of Information Act 2000/Part 1d
 * Freedom of Information Act 2000/Part 3
 * Freedom of Information Act 2000/Schedule 1(I-V)

-Mike.lifeguard 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I tagged all of them with but I went back and changed them to , seeing as how that's more appropriate. Someone who knows how should do that, and then delete them. I guess I'll close this 'debate'. -Mike.lifeguard 05:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a message at Wikisource about these pages, asking if they are acceptable. If Wikisource turns them down, should I reopen this VfD, or simply delete the pages? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say there covered rather clearly under wikisource:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. If not, then I'd delete them - legislation is available online from the government, so there's no need to have them on wiki at all, much less on WB.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually these are Crown Copyright, which as far as I know is not compatable with the GFDL. (Which is kind of ironic for a freedom of information act, now that I think about it :P)-- SB_Johnny | talk 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to go back and check what country this Act was from. Apparently, UK Crown Copyright is explicitly not compatible with the GFDL (etc.) so it is a copyright violation on top of not being a textbook. Even if WS will take legislation, they can't keep this stuff because it'd be a copyvio.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 02:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)