Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger E. Moore


 * 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Roger E. Moore
Delete I am the author of said article and no longer wish to have my work ripped off by others. Only changes made to the artecle have been minor and with categories. Drmike 16:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ripped off? Care to explain? -- ReyBrujo 16:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the bottom of every page it states : "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)."  And, under each editing box, it says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."  By contributing, the editor has agreed to these terms.  So, yes, he should stop contributing to WP (as is his right), but what he has already contributed is already under free liscence.--Esprit15d 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. People can't request their work to be deleted because they feel like it. According to CSD G7 the page can be speedy deleted "provided the page was (...) mistakenly created". This is not the case here. Punkmorten 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Esprit15d. WP:CSD G7 does allow for speedying if:
 * Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created."
 * but I hardly see that this can be claimed as "mistakenly created" when the original author has taken the trouble to make cleanup edits, then add information and a picture after some four months! Tonywalton | Talk 17:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was mistakenly created.  I have found too many places on the net where my work is being used without credit.  I thought you folks respected copyright.  My mistake. --Drmike 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're not getting credit, they're in violation of the GFDL. Report them.  Night Gyr 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Drmike should have read the disclaimer. Also, who feels the need to be credited for a five line Wikipedia entry? Osgoodelawyer 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While I agree that Drmike can't just have his contributions removed because he no longer likes that they're here, I'm not sure that the subject of the article is really noteable enough for an entry. Just having worked on some RPGs doesn't really make you noteable NoIdeaNick 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC).  Seems I was a little hasty here.  He certainly has a fair number of Google results.  I'm still not sure that he's really noteable enough, but I think it's probably better to keep an article when there's some doubt.  I change my vote to Abstain. NoIdeaNick 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. You don't WP:OWN articles you create. Moore sounds like a notable bloke, and thus the article won't be deleted just because its author (or even Moore himself) asks to. J I P  | Talk 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not because of the author's request, but because Roger Moore is not-notable. Refer to this line "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Captain Jackson 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: A Google search for "Roger E. Moore discovered roleplaying games in the late 1970s while writing gaming articles" returns 15 results, including one from Wizards of the Coast, which is quite similar. Either you copied it from this page, or this page copied it from you. If the first case, it is a copyvio. If it is the second, they are not specifying the source as, in example, Answers.com entry. -- ReyBrujo 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Esprit15d and JIP, assuming no copyvio. MCB 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't sound very notable. Being a past member of SFWA is not really enough to be notable. In fact there are many many current members who I don't think would be notable enough. The other stuff sounds minor. Also, even if it's not policy, if the creator/autobiographer doesn't want it I think that matters. If this person is important enough another person can create an article on him when/if that becomes obvious.--T. Anthony 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments about article ownership. He is notable as the editor of two well-read magazines and a RPG designer so I see no valid reason to get rid of this. Keresaspa 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, nomination makes no sense. Gazpacho 19:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up, both because writers don't own articles and because Roger Moore is a notable RPG author. A partial bibliography can be found here. and he was a longtime editor of Dragon Magazine, probably the most notable RPG magazine.--ThreeAnswers 18:32, 22 January 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.