Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dark Ages in Europe

 __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:  blank.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 20:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Dark Ages in Europe

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;
 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Recently the article Dark Ages (Europe) was created by User:ThuDauMot which was SNOW deleted (today) at AfD Articles for deletion/Dark Ages (Europe). ThuDauMot admitted they used an old draft from 2008 User:Crotalus horridus/Dark Ages as the basis. However during the AfD it was found ThuDauMot is a sock of User:Kauffner (a major long-term sock master) who had created User:Kauffner/Europe in the Dark Ages in 2011, and this was in fact what Kauffner/ThuDauMot was basing Dark Ages (Europe) on; and Kauffner/ThuDauMot based the 2011 draft on the 2008 draft by User:Crotalus horridus/Dark Ages. All three articles are interconnected, and the one that made it into mainspace Dark Ages (Europe) has been deleted for reasons including a prejudiced view favored by the alt-right and rejected by most professional historians as hopelessly biased (Kauffner is known for pushing alt-right views). The framing of the articles is not support by the community, as seen in the AfD, these drafts need to go to avoid future copying into mainspace by more Kauffner socks, or whoever finds them. User:Crotalus horridus last edited the page in 2008, and has not logged into Wikipedia since 2015. User:Kauffner is blocked as of 2013. -- Green  C  06:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blank, but do not delete. The above raises copyright concerns, and deletion will forever hide violation and prevent required attribution. There is a can of worms here.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: If everything is deleted, what elsewhere requires attribution? The concern is the pages could come back into mainspace via Kauffner socks, again, a blank would not prevent that. -- Green  C  15:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleting old Kauffner works makes socking easier because it makes it harder to compare the new vs old. Better to blank, keeping the history for reference.  Also, I do not support deletion of userspace pages in the basis that the user would be later blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blank. Useful to have the history out in the open for the next Kauffner sock we find. Makes it easier for non-admin SPI clerks like me; I often will pass over an SPI if effectively clerking it means I'd have to ask an admin to send me a deleted copy of something, which I would have had to do in the latest Kauffner SPI if these were deleted. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (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.