Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal VI (Requested deletion)[edit]

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

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[edit]

Agree[edit]

  1. I'm not really adamant about this, but I don't oppose it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ld | talk 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. David Gerard 00:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Norman Rogers\talk 00:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. SimonP 00:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Josh Cherry 01:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. MarkSweep 01:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. older≠wiser 01:55, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Rje 02:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. As long as nobody else has edited it, this seems reasonable and humane. Meelar (talk) 02:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Carnildo 02:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  20. cleduc (talk) 03:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Sc147 03:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  23. TOR 03:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. gadfium 05:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. BrokenSegue 05:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. DJ Clayworth 05:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Only if no one else has edited it.Dr Zen 05:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Ben Brockert 05:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  30. Korath (Talk) 06:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Slowking Man 07:43, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Sortior 08:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Jeff Knaggs 08:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. If the writers realize their mistakes and want them corrected, all the better Skysmith 09:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. Ливай | ☺ 09:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Rafał Pocztarski 10:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. Dysprosia 11:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  38. David Johnson [T|C] 12:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. Dori | Talk 14:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Tuf-Kat 14:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  41. P Ingerson 14:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. BrokenSegue 15:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  44. Jrdioko (Talk) 17:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  45. 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)
  46. wheresmysocks 17:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  47. 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)
  48. Peacenik 20:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. 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)
  50. MPerel 22:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  51. hfool/Wazzup? 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) As long as no one else has edited it. No exceptions.
  52. Anthony Liekens 00:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. BSveen 00:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  54. RMG 01:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC). I'm vaguely surprised we can't already do this.
  55. Joshuapaquin 02:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  56. DCEdwards1966 03:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  57. ℘yrop (talk) 03:20, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  58. gK ¿? 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  59. Fair enough. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  60. Taking the ball and going home is easily prevented. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  61. jni 10:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. Ryan! | Talk 10:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  63. Xezbeth 11:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  64. Bucephalus 12:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  65. Alphax (talk) 12:56, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  66. Tompagenet 13:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  67. As long as we don't have to delete it, this sounds reasonable. Gamaliel 14:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  68. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  69. Kaldari 16:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  70. Mailer Diablo 16:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  71. G Rutter 16:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  72. Proteus (Talk) 17:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  73. David Iberri | Talk 19:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  74. Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  75. 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
  76. Shane King 01:34, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  77. ping 08:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  78. Dbiv 15:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  79. arj 16:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  80. Deb 18:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  81. Pavel Vozenilek 21:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  82. Sure. -- Infrogmation 21:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  83. Hapsiainen 21:44, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  84. Agree with Skysmith. Lee S. Svoboda 21:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  85. Deathphoenix 23:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'm assuming sysops will do a quick check to see that it's only been edited by the author.
  86. Paul August ☎ 02:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  87. Seems like a good idea. --JuntungWu 03:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  88. Wyss 04:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  89. SWAdair | Talk 07:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  90. Warofdreams 12:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  91. Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  92. Mrwojo 22:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  93. Sound like a good idea--Plato 23:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  94. kaal 02:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  95. kelvSYC 06:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) - No brainer here...
  96. SocratesJedi 07:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC). The best proposal offered in this round. Fully support. It just makes sense.
  97. Ben Standeven 07:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  98. Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  99. Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  100. As long as useful articles are not deleted. Josh 11:28, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  101. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  102. ike9898 02:18, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  103. Mikkalai 03:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  104. Hoary 05:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  105. Stormie 07:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  106. Jiang 08:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  107. If someone else was going to add something to it, they can recreate it themselves. -Thryduulf 10:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  108. Belgian man 12:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) (see vote 27 of Dr Zen)
  109. Norg 15:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  110. AlexTiefling 17:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  111. Dejvid 20:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  112. FLafaire 02:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  113. Paddu 08:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  114. bernlin2000 ∞ 15:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): I've made mistakes myself, and this would really speed of optimization of Wikipedia.
  115. DAVODD 21:13, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  116. RedWordSmith 21:59, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  117. Spangineer ∞ 00:05, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  118. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:17, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  119. Szyslak 02:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  120. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) But admins need to be careful.
  121. 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)
  122. Yes. I thought this was already policy—Trevor Caira 07:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  123. Indrian 07:18, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  124. Yes, but not with prejudice. Cool Hand Luke 09:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  125. Curps 09:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  126. Visviva 10:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Hey, I actually agree with this one.
  127. Trilobite (Talk) 13:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  128. Martg76 16:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  129. Smerdis of Tlön 19:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  130. 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)
  131. CryptoDerk 22:19, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  132. 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.
  133. Agree to this one. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  134. Catherine\talk 01:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  135. JoaoRicardo 04:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  136. Starblind 20:54, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) I like this idea. People might be bold and create more articles if they knew they could delete them if necessary.
  137.  — Pt (T) 23:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  138. bbx 02:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  139. Philip 06:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  140. — Asbestos | Talk 18:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  141. [[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.
  142. BesigedB (talk) 16:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Important clarification of of "test page" rule.
  143. Key45 23:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  144. 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)
  145. Edeans 07:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  146. Enochlau 23:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  147. Aphaea 02:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  148. We all make mistakes and some of us don't want them sticking out like a sore thumb for five days on VfD -- UTSRelativity 03:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  149. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  150. R. S. Shaw 07:41, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  151. 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.
  152. John 11:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  153. 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.
  154. RedWolf 20:51, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  155. --InShaneee 21:30, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  156. Agree with AlexR. Rich Farmbrough 23:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree[edit]

  1. Smoddy | Talk 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. max rspct 00.20 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  3. Xtra 00:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  5. not unless it is worded that *only* applies where no other edits have been done since creation. Vamp:Willow 01:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. 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)
    Alrighty then. Vote changed. Ливай | ☺ 09:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. 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)
    I answered on the talk page. Rafał Pocztarski 12:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Agree with Adam. RadicalSubversiv E 09:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. 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.
  11. Frazzydee|✍ 04:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Gentgeen 11:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. 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)
  14. It isn't their choice. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. It can still be a valid article, whether they think so or not. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 06:23, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  17. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. [maestro] 12:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Only if the article already falls into another speedy category. Cmprince 23:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Superm401 17:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)Maestrosync has a point. They were warned.
  20. Markaci 09:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Once submitted, submitted. Oldak Quill 19:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_VI_(Requested_deletion)&oldid=1168078059"