244:. Agree with above that an article is not owned by any one person and that mere wish to delete by one author of article or the subject of the article is not enough. But we have in the past acquiesced to requests by sole authors to remove content even if it had been GFDL (I remember a case about an image of someone's wife and the Koran, I believe) as a matter of human courtesy. What would be helpful is to know to what extent
78:. AfD is not the proper venue here, as this is an encyclopedic subject. The wishes of the article's subject are not relevant unless the article is in violation of applicable law or Knowledge (XXG) policies. Google searches for random blocks of text indicate no copyright violation of online sources. If you think this is in violation of copyright on printed text, please proceed as per
147:, which means that you, among other things, have lost the right to insist that it be removed from Knowledge (XXG) or any other publication which complies with the conditions of the GFDL., so this article MAY remain here against your wishes. (It can also be removed if the consensus of the community is that it does not fit the needs of the encyclopedia.) No vote.
163:
Clearly someone not wanting this page is not grounds for deletion. I confess I'm struggling with the lack of sources. I'm not suspicious - I just like good sources. The ones here are fairly circular, as the first links back to wikipedia (strange for a page they want deleted). I think that any
118:
I am the author of the article and I also wish it to be deleted. I'm not claiming it is a violation of copyright. Rather, I am saying I was unauthorized to write this article in the first place. Am I to understand that after voluntarily writing this article it now MUST remain on
Knowledge (XXG)
248:
is the only "real" author of the article - there are others in the contribution history, but a lot of the changes seem minor or removals of paragraphs. Isn't there some visual tool to see the authorship split of an article? If
64:
Delete. The
Leadership of the Order of the Collar organization did not authorize the writing of the article and wish it to be removed.In addition, the content was taken from their own published history without permission.
201:
rewrite anything that is a copyright violation. I'm sorry that you have written something that you were not "authorized" to write but this is not the forum to debate that
189:
because the 'leadership' asking it to be removed is not a reason to remove it. Rewrite anything that's a copyvio. I'm rather sceptical about the whole thing though.
226:
Nice - is this link on the page? Can any bilingual type tell if this all supports what the page says? Oops sorry i know take it to talk. I agree
164:
statement without sources should be removed. Anyone know how to access charity commision lists? Nevermind - I'll take it to the talk page.
257:
234:
205:
193:
179:
168:
151:
138:
123:
110:
98:
86:
69:
52:
17:
253:
is the near-only author and he wants it to go, I'm inclined to delete. If there has been active collaboration, then not.
58:
275:
36:
135:
274:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
143:
To be perfectly clear, yes, by submitting an article to
Knowledge (XXG) you have liscensed it under the
120:
66:
190:
174:
49:
250:
245:
202:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
131:
107:
79:
215:
The sources requested can all be found on the
Archive page of the Scandinavian site, at
83:
148:
254:
95:
231:
176:
165:
216:
268:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
144:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
278:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
217:http://www.mocterranordica.org/Arkiv.html
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
134:. What do you mean, "authorized"?
59:Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha
24:
173:Here is the best link I found
1:
44:The result of the debate was
94:Sandstein is exactly right.
295:
258:01:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
235:23:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
206:16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
194:11:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
180:23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
169:23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
152:02:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
139:21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
124:21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
111:20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
99:20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
87:19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
70:18:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
53:03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
271:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
136:Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.
242:Not sure if to keep
119:against my wishes?
76:Speedy Keep for now
286:
273:
34:
294:
293:
289:
288:
287:
285:
284:
283:
282:
276:deletion review
269:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
292:
290:
281:
280:
263:
261:
260:
239:
238:
237:
221:
220:
209:
208:
196:
184:
183:
182:
157:
156:
155:
154:
127:
126:
113:
106:per Sandstein
101:
89:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
291:
279:
277:
272:
266:
265:
264:
259:
256:
252:
247:
243:
240:
236:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
211:
210:
207:
204:
200:
197:
195:
192:
191:Robin Johnson
188:
185:
181:
178:
175:
172:
171:
170:
167:
162:
159:
158:
153:
150:
146:
142:
141:
140:
137:
133:
129:
128:
125:
122:
117:
114:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
81:
77:
74:
73:
72:
71:
68:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
50:Mailer Diablo
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
270:
267:
262:
241:
227:
212:
203:Nigelthefish
198:
186:
160:
115:
103:
91:
75:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
251:Inspectore
246:Inspectore
108:Bucketsofg
187:Weak keep
121:Inpectore
84:Sandstein
67:Inpectore
149:Dsmdgold
255:Martinp
161:Comment
96:Gwernol
132:WP:OWN
116:Delete
232:Obina
177:Obina
166:Obina
80:WP:CP
16:<
228:Keep
213:Keep
199:Keep
145:GFDL
130:Cf.
104:Keep
92:Keep
46:keep
82:.
48:.
230:.
219:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.