Wikipedia talk:Countdown deletion/The single-author requirement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The single-author requirement 1.1 Should it go? 1.2 How do we deal with dynamic IPs? 1.3 Significant improvement is more important

[edit] The single-author requirement

Based on the objections below that were raised to the single-author requirement, it has been removed from the proposal.

[edit] Should it go?

If no one but the original author edits the page, it is automatically deleted. Frankly, some subjects are too obscure for other Wikipedians to get involved with, but they are still encyclopedic. For example, I've written a number of biographies of New Zealand scientists. I think they're worthy of including in Wikipedia, but the chances are that no other current Wikipedian is knowledgable about the history of mycology in New Zealand. I'd be happy to defend them on VfD, but under your proposal, they'd be indefensible unless I could find someone else to make a contribution to the articles.

Perhaps, if the article has been substantially changed even by the original author in the first seven days, it should be voted on.-gadfium 02:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As it stands, the provision on single-user editing would probably hurt more than it would help. In the "worst case", all that happens is a vote that might have been unnecessary. Countdown votes would still go far quicker than VfD votes. We should toss the provision out. JRM 08:57, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

[edit] How do we deal with dynamic IPs?

If an anonymous user is on dial-up, then each edit they make may be with a different IP address, without them attempting to circumvent the rules. If they get an account part way through the process, then they have both the original edits, and signed edits.-gadfium 02:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Significant improvement is more important

I don't really care how many people edit an article. If the original author is able to improve it in time, it should be allowed to stay. Mgm|^(talk) 07:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)