Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Fair use overuse explanation


 * 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 Keep and moved to projectspace Lenticel  ( talk ) 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Fair use overuse explanation
This is an essay, in the userspace of a banned user, that has two shortcuts (WP:OVERUSE and WP:FUEXPLAIN) pointing at it. I'm not sure if this page should be deleted, moved to project space where anyone can edit it, or simply have a note added to the top of it explaining the status, but I believe that the current configuration is somewhat misleading. — PyTom (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Either the page needs to be moved in to project space, or those shortcuts need to go. WP: shortcuts should never point to userspace IMO. I do agree that the current configuration is a bit misleading (especially if those shortcuts are actually used anywhere where someone might mistake them for policy or guideline). I wouldn't oppose outright deletion either, but I expect the solution will likely involve moving it to project space. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia namespace. Good content, even if the user is banned. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/move Link has been given as explanation for actions at the time and should still be available for transparency. (Regardless of whether we agree with its content). Agathoclea (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep at new title. Good content, very useful to refer new users to, which was not written by Betacommand- it was just shifted to that userspace from another user's space when they left the project. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I fail to see how the page title matters in the slightest. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per J Milburn. Hi878 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as retitled for sure. Banning does not affect validity, and this was not even created by a banned user anyway.  Collect (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it's in project space. We need something like this, and we might as well have this one. The "banned user" rule doesn't apply here, and even if it did, it does not require us to delete material helpful to the project (it does give us the option to do so, but that's all). — Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Projectspace The "banned user" who authored this essay, before his truculence finally undid him, was one of the major forces in shaping how we deal with non-free, fair-use images in the encyclopedia.  Even if the content of the essay wasn't valuable in its own right (it is), the essay would still have significant historical value.  The point of Beta's banning was not to allow his substantial legacy to be erased from Wikipedia; rather, it was just so that we wouldn't have to deal with his bullshit anymore.   --Dynaflow   babble  07:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to project space. The banning of an editor does not suddenly mean that the content in his userspace is forbidden.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving this was the right thing to do, as it allows it to be maintained. It also means the redirects are no longer problematic. Does it make sense to speedy close this? — PyTom (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2009 (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.