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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I'll add it to the proposal, along with another of my own. Isomorphic 09:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposals VI and VII

message: 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)
thread_title: Concerns about deletion of useful articles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Author's right of deletion