Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gotlieb Archive

 __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: Move. — xaosflux  Talk 04:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Gotlieb Archive


Eight year old draft. It was kept at Miscellany for deletion/Abd user pages but that's not about the content. It basically contains a list of external links where the Gotlieb Archive is mentioned which could also be created by a simple external links search. Currently, the mainspace version redirects to Mugar Memorial Library which while small is also unsourced and does provide detail. I'll probably go through the external links sections and add a link to Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center but this draft is not going anywhere and the main creator has been indefinitely blocked for close to five years now. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Put back at User:Abd/Gotlieb Archive, from where it was inappropriately moved.  It was never a draft, it is Abd's notes.  Abd is a valuable, if eccentric, person and Wikipedian.  So he had trouble with being told.  He is not blocked infinitely, and some of us will welcome his return.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why in the world would you want to reverse a five-year-old move to put it back into an userspace of an editor who not only hasn't edited here for five years but couldn't have edited here for the last five? The user page is fully protected, what is your point in arguing about all of this? Do we really need to save this list of random internal links rather than delete and just deal with it in case the editor, after five years of a fully protected talk page due to repeated disruptions, can convince someone via email to unblock them and then they can request it be restored? Don't tell me this MFD and deleting the page is somehow hindering them or discouraging them from returning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The inappropriate move was inappropriate then and is now formalised as inappropriate, and should be reversed regardless of age. This is a userpage, nothing more, except that someone moved it inappropriately without permission.
 * My friend, User:Abd, has received a lot of advice, and can return now at any time, subject to accepting some of that advice. If he is gone for good, or has deceased, this is even more reason to keep, as we do not disappear old editors, even if they had difficulties.  I wouldn't take this line except for things that belong in his userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2016 (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.