Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion): Difference between revisions

The talk page Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD was split into individual talk pages for each proposal, to limit the size of the talk page and facilitate individual discussions on each proposal. The history and attributions for the comments made before the split can be seen by following the history link on the /General talk page.

I suggest to add one more case, IMO pretty evident: Deletion on original author's request, if he reasonably explains that the article was created by mistake.

There have already been several such cases when a newbie makes an honest error, but naturally cannot delete his monster. Mikkalai 03:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would this still apply if others had contributed to the article? And does blanking by the original author qualify? —Korath^会話 06:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well if all editors agree to deletion, then it should be deleted. Blanking by the original author should result in deletion if and only if noone else had edited the article. Brianjd 09:41, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

I'll add it to the proposal, along with another of my own. Isomorphic 09:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New proposals added. I would appreciate it if others corrected, expanded, and improved my wording on both of them, especially on Proposal VI. Isomorphic 10:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd very much like to see Proposal VI altered such that all authors must agree to the deletion, as discussed above. —Korath (Talk) 02:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I altered it to having only the original author having edits. Asking all editors would often take more time than putting it up to VfD, so I don't think it would make sense to have it as a speedy candidate. --Ben Brockert < 04:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Whilst 'all' authors could be difficult to confirm, just the 'original' author is only applicable (imho) where no additional content of substance has been added by someone other than a repeat visit by the original author. --Vamp:Willow 19:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There should be no issue of "asking all editors". This is "requested deletion", that is the author or authors should be the one(s) reguesting the deletion. Thus if every editor of an article requests deletion then it would be in the spirit of this proposal to speedy delete it. Perhaps the proposal should be modified to reflect this. Paul August ☎ 20:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Bishop expressed the following concern on the vote page: 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? — I don't think this will be a problem: if you see a valid article listed for speedy deletion, you can try to prevent its deletion by editing it (it may still get deleted for unrelated reasons). Also the original author nominating it is supposed to "reasonably [explain] that it was created by mistake". Ideally, trying to explain that a perfectly valid article should be deleted would not come across as a reasonable request, so it cannot be deleted under the proposed policy item. --MarkSweep 12:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this comment and got an edit conflict with MarkSweep who has written almost exactly the same, but I’ll post it anyway. Answering the question in Adam Bishop’s Proposal VI (Requested deletion) Disagree vote:

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)

If it is a good article then no one has to delete it, speedily or otherwise, even if it is a candidate for speedy deletion. I can only speak for myself, but I never automatically delete any candidates. I never delete anything which I don’t think should be deleted so if I saw a good article with the {{delete}} tag added by its author, I would most probably just remove the tag with an explanation and optionally edit the article, as I have already done many times before, no matter who had nominated it for speedy deletion. In fact, I remove the speedy tag quite often. On the other hand, I deleted [1] the HP Association article an hour ago, with {{db|I created it by mistake}} exactly because it was not a valid article (an empty table, deleted by its only author). The author doesn’t “own” the article and cannot demand anything, but I think the right to ask for the deletion seems quite reasonable. Rafał Pocztarski 12:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a matter of courtesy. Even if the article is perfectly good, if no one else has edited it, and the author regrets his decision to put it here, we should honor it. It's just a matter of being a good host of information. People should want to contribute here, it should not be trap of any sort. Once someone else has contributed to it, even if to correct a single spelling, then we can no longer delete it as a matter of courtesy. It doesn't have anything to do with "owning" it. The author has the copyrights. Due to the GFDL we are legally OK with keeping it. I argue that it would not be morally OK. But in any event there is no ownership. You can't own information. Dori | Talk 14:43, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I thought I would clarify a comment I made. The GFDL, like the GPL, is not a contract; thus, the initial author of an article written under the GFDL is not bound by its terms. E can, therefore, revoke the license by giving notice to the licensee. Any language to the contrary in the GFDL is unenforceable. Therefore, until an intervening substantially-transformative edit occurs, all such submissions are subject to arbitrary revocation on mere notice to the publisher(s) by the original author, and upon revocation all publication must immediately cease.

Once a substantially-transformative edit occurs, copyright in the resulting work rests not with the original author but with the person doing the substantially-transformative edit, who is then obliged to relicense any further distribution under the terms of the license allowing the edit in the first place, and is prohibited from revoking that license by virtue of being the licensee on the original edit. Since such secondary licensees receive their licenses not from the original licensor, but from the licensee (whose rights have been terminated by the revocation), their licenses remain intact until they also receive actual notice of the revocation, and derivation licenses predicated on those licenses remain valid. It is probably possible for an original licensor to revoke these relicenses as well, but meeting the requirement for actual notice for termination is likely to be difficult.

All of this flows from the fact that a license that is not a contract cannot impose an obligation upon the licensor. It is also established law that a license cannot be made irrevocable without consideration, and there is no consideration received by the licensor for licenses granted under the GFDL (or GPL). There is simply no way to prohibit the original licensor (author) from revoking eir grant of license, which is why you have to allow for author's perogative to delete.

--Kelly Martin 22:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)