Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Appsolutely everything/GetJar

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

The result of the discussion was  Delete. History merge is not necessary. Attribution history has been provided on the article's talk page. Nakon 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Appsolutely everything/GetJar


Stale userspace draft. Article was created at GetJar but a history merge isn't needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "a history merge isn't needed"? Why do you say that?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is not a "Stale userspace draft" but an actual draft an an extant article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * History merge is required, because the page contents at GetJar were, apparently to my inspection, copied from User:Appsolutely everything/GetJar, and is not listed as an author of GetJar.  This author must be attributed as an author.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that? This final version at this page was done almost two weeks before this version (excluding the redirect creation) and included none of the links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The userspace page existed first, and includes text so similar to the later mainspace creation that it is sufficient to call the mainspace creation a copyright violation. Either the mainspace creation was a copyright violation, or both were copyright violations.  Including User:Appsolutely everything in the author list is the safest course of action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Report from the underworld - There's some deleted history here.
 * On October 14 2009, the mainspace article was originally created, but was deleted the same day as a copyvio.
 * On October 26, the page was recreated by Egil, but with no independent references. Several editors worked on it.
 * On November 5, Appsolutely everything made a substantial change to the text, including some of what's in the draft above, as well as a whole whack of promotional detail, and removed "citation needed" tags added by another user, using the edit summary "tag excessive whitespace".
 * This resulted in the article being deleted the next day as too promotional, and the title was create-protected.
 * December 14, Appsolutely everything created the draft with some of the same content that led to the deletion.
 * In January, the title was unprotected, and Mathiastck copied the same text, recreating the article, which continued to have problems with promotional content and lack of references.
 * In summary, although Appsolutely everything did write the text in the draft, he/she did not create the article, and in fact, caused the article to be deleted by adding that text. If his/her edit had just been reverted back then, the article would be properly attributed to Egil.  I'm not sure what should be done to fix this.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . Hmmm. Broadly speaking, I don't find this so unusual, even finding it reminiscent of real world stories of involvement and authorship. Same as there, I say, give him authorship, even if he doesn't deserve it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm here on request at WT:CP. I've used the technique we used to use back in the days before revision deletion, rather than restoring the history and merging from the userspace draft, by adding a list of contributors to the talk page of the current article. It's more complete than it legally needs to be, as the list can be filtered to exclude minimal contributions and certainly people who added deletion tags, etc., contributed no creative content, but I just put the whole list there. That satisfies copyright according to our wmf:Terms of Use which now and in 2009 required agreement that a list of authors satisfied attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Moonriddengirl. Now that the copyright issue is resolved, it seems the draft doesn't legally have to be merged; however, it still makes a difference as to who is notified in case the mainspace article is tagged or under discussion at a later date. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd worry too much about that, Anne Delong. Any tags or discussions will be flagged on the face of the article, and we have quite a few articles where we have no good way to reach the originators, such as IP created articles from our early days or through the current draft system. :) Content that is split from other articles is also not easily linked to the originator of the text, since the attribution may consist only of a link to another article in the edit summary. Oh, and all those articles we used to delete and attribute that way before revision deletion had exactly the same issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.