Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha
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. Inpectore 18:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep for now. 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 Wikipedia 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 WP:CP. Sandstein 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sandstein is exactly right. Gwernol 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sandstein Bucketsofg 20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 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 Wikipedia against my wishes? Inpectore 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cf. WP:OWN. What do you mean, "authorized"?  Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear, yes, by submitting an article to Wikipedia you have liscensed it under the GFDL, which means that you, among other things, have lost the right to insist that it be removed from Wikipedia 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. Dsmdgold 02:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment 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 statement without sources should be removed.  Anyone know how to access charity commision lists? Nevermind - I'll take it to the talk page.Obina 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the best link I found Obina 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep 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. Robin Johnson 11:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 Nigelthefish 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources requested can all be found on the Archive page of the Scandinavian site, at http://www.mocterranordica.org/Arkiv.html.


 * 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 Keep.Obina 23:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if to keep. 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 Inspectore 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 Inspectore is the near-only author and he wants it to go, I'm inclined to delete. If there has been active collaboration, then not. Martinp 01:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.