Any article which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the article was edited only by its author.
Votes
Agree
I'm not really adamant about this, but I don't oppose it.
BLANKFAZE |
(что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is already done for redirects (typos) and images. Suggest that "article" be replaced with "page, redirect, or image" when this is written into the
WP:CSD page. --
Netoholic@ 00:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
While I am reluctant about this, if the article has not been edited by anyone but its author the author has the legal right to have it deleted under copyright law anyway.
Kelly Martin 17:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not strictly true, since submitting to Wikipedia implies release under the
GFDL.
Isomorphic 00:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but only if the clause requesting the original author to be the only author is religiously applied. Let's just hope this isn't twisted by anyone into a concept of article property...
Phils 18:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just remember that since the author released it under the GFDL, you have the right to not delete it if it is useful (Kelly Martin says it isn't so above?).
Thue |
talk 21:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keith D. Tyler[
flame 20:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC), hopefully even "mistaken" articles with considerable valid content won't be tossed based solely on this
jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) But admins need to be careful.
Fair enough, though should be treated on a case-by-case basis to make sure the delete request is legitimate. Mind you there's nothing stopping someone from just blanking the page on their own anyway, is there?
23skidoo 06:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I thought this was already policy—
Trevor Caira 07:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
At last one of these proposed changes actually makes sense. This will neatly solve the problem of having to have a week-long vote (and clog up the VfD page) because somebody created an article by accident --
Cynical 20:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Isomorphic 23:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Of course, we are not obligated to delete an article just because the author requests it, but taking mistakes off of VfD will lighten the load.
[[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 07:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Could be especially useful for accidental image uploads that are known by the author to be copy-vios. As a matter of policy it is common courtesy to the author, only if the clause "and the article was edited only by its author" is respected.
BesigedB(
talk) 16:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Important clarification of of "test page" rule.
Eric119 The counterarguments don't convince me. The original author can only request, not force, and must provide a reason it is an accident. It's quite possible to accidentally make a short stub when we already have a detailed article under a different name. Vanity articles changed by others are ruled out by this proposal. 05:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PacknCanes 08:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) But only if the single-edit rule is religiously applied. Also, something may want to be added requiring anything speedied under this clause to appear on VfD first, so we don't run into overstepping-of-bounds while applying the rule.
AlexR 14:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Would add to that "if article was wikified, i.e. just format, no content added". Once did that and poor author couldn't get the article deleted, just because I added a few square brackets.
I would agree with this only if it didn't apply when other users have edited the page, unless all collaborators agree with the author's request.
Ливай |
☺ 03:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know there is no discussion on a vote page but the proposal says: "...when only the author has edited it". Not a vote.
DJ Clayworth 05:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
They no longer "own" the article once they submit it...I suppose it depends on the case, but what if it was a perfectly valid article?
Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RickK 21:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC). We have had cases where people have demanded that their vanity articles be deleted because they didn't like what people said about them, which have been turned into decent articles.
In parliamentary procedure, when a member introduces a bill or makes a motion, it is no longer his property and to withdraw it requires the consent of the body. So I vote no.
PedanticallySpeaking 19:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: As I understand it, the proposal only adds one item to the list of situations in which an article may be speedily deleted; there is no requirement that the article must be deleted just because its original author requested deletion. The decision to delete is made by an admin based on the explanation that must be be provided with the deletion request. Approval by vote is not required, nor is it required for patent nonsense, test pages, etc. --
MarkSweep 13:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It isn't their choice.
✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Any article which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the article was edited only by its author.
Votes
Agree
I'm not really adamant about this, but I don't oppose it.
BLANKFAZE |
(что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is already done for redirects (typos) and images. Suggest that "article" be replaced with "page, redirect, or image" when this is written into the
WP:CSD page. --
Netoholic@ 00:21, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
While I am reluctant about this, if the article has not been edited by anyone but its author the author has the legal right to have it deleted under copyright law anyway.
Kelly Martin 17:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not strictly true, since submitting to Wikipedia implies release under the
GFDL.
Isomorphic 00:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but only if the clause requesting the original author to be the only author is religiously applied. Let's just hope this isn't twisted by anyone into a concept of article property...
Phils 18:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just remember that since the author released it under the GFDL, you have the right to not delete it if it is useful (Kelly Martin says it isn't so above?).
Thue |
talk 21:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keith D. Tyler[
flame 20:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC), hopefully even "mistaken" articles with considerable valid content won't be tossed based solely on this
jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) But admins need to be careful.
Fair enough, though should be treated on a case-by-case basis to make sure the delete request is legitimate. Mind you there's nothing stopping someone from just blanking the page on their own anyway, is there?
23skidoo 06:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I thought this was already policy—
Trevor Caira 07:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
At last one of these proposed changes actually makes sense. This will neatly solve the problem of having to have a week-long vote (and clog up the VfD page) because somebody created an article by accident --
Cynical 20:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Isomorphic 23:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Of course, we are not obligated to delete an article just because the author requests it, but taking mistakes off of VfD will lighten the load.
[[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 07:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Could be especially useful for accidental image uploads that are known by the author to be copy-vios. As a matter of policy it is common courtesy to the author, only if the clause "and the article was edited only by its author" is respected.
BesigedB(
talk) 16:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Important clarification of of "test page" rule.
Eric119 The counterarguments don't convince me. The original author can only request, not force, and must provide a reason it is an accident. It's quite possible to accidentally make a short stub when we already have a detailed article under a different name. Vanity articles changed by others are ruled out by this proposal. 05:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PacknCanes 08:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) But only if the single-edit rule is religiously applied. Also, something may want to be added requiring anything speedied under this clause to appear on VfD first, so we don't run into overstepping-of-bounds while applying the rule.
AlexR 14:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Would add to that "if article was wikified, i.e. just format, no content added". Once did that and poor author couldn't get the article deleted, just because I added a few square brackets.
I would agree with this only if it didn't apply when other users have edited the page, unless all collaborators agree with the author's request.
Ливай |
☺ 03:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know there is no discussion on a vote page but the proposal says: "...when only the author has edited it". Not a vote.
DJ Clayworth 05:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
They no longer "own" the article once they submit it...I suppose it depends on the case, but what if it was a perfectly valid article?
Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RickK 21:23, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC). We have had cases where people have demanded that their vanity articles be deleted because they didn't like what people said about them, which have been turned into decent articles.
In parliamentary procedure, when a member introduces a bill or makes a motion, it is no longer his property and to withdraw it requires the consent of the body. So I vote no.
PedanticallySpeaking 19:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: As I understand it, the proposal only adds one item to the list of situations in which an article may be speedily deleted; there is no requirement that the article must be deleted just because its original author requested deletion. The decision to delete is made by an admin based on the explanation that must be be provided with the deletion request. Approval by vote is not required, nor is it required for patent nonsense, test pages, etc. --
MarkSweep 13:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It isn't their choice.
✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)