Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andre Birleanu

 __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 all versions apart from SmokeyJoe's version. BencherliteTalk 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Andre Birleanu
Not really sure whether a User page like this is acceptable - it looks like nothing but self-promotion from someone who is not eligible for his own article, and the only article-space edits he's made have been to an article that features him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Edited to a reasonable userpage for a two-day contributor who was only here to correct content related to himself. The userpage was unacceptably promotional, too long, too much detail, and too many external links.  A brief statement and a single link an external page is more suitable.  Thank Andre for making the edits that he made.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not much point in deleting it now...  Hi 8 7 8   (Come yell at me!) 00:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Revision deletion Selective revision delete of all the revisions prior to SmokeyJoe's edit. The content on the page was a copyright violation of http://mvutokwanza.blogspot.com/2010_04_18_archive.html. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * People may like to restart conversation, left off at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights/Archive_13 on the subject of whether copyright violations in the history should be subjected to revision deletion. It is not obvious that the history of pages is considered "currently published".  To the extent that it was once published on Wikipedia, revision deletion is just history revisionism.  I don't believe that it is normal to delete copyright allegedly-offensive material in page histories in the absence of a complain by the copyright holder.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking over the contents of http://mvutokwanza.blogspot.com/2010_04_18_archive.html, I have concluded that Andre Birleanu likely didn't write it and so is not the owner of the content. I support removing the copyright-violating revisions via revision deletion; see the policy, Revision deletion, specifically #Criteria for redaction #1. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That page & criteria do not *require* revision deletion, and I don't support revision deletion for every past copyright deletion, as this is unnecessary and too great a burden. In this case, revision deletion is a good idea as it makes very clear that the past version was unacceptable, without saying that the user cannot have any form of userpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdraw. Editing it right down looks like the best solution - thanks SmokeyJoe - so I'd be happy to withdraw the deletion nomination now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with closing this debate as long as the closing admin redacts the copyright-violating revisions per Revision deletion #1. Cunard (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (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.