Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:David A/Important Fact Links

 __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: no consensus. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:David A/Important Fact Links


Page is for the sole purpose of SOAPBOXing against various groups, including Muslims and immigrants. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This nomination is related to this ANi


 * Keep userpage of an active contributor being used directly for work on articles. IDONTLIKEIT nomination without any basis in policy. The links I spot checked are RS accurately summarized.  Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's one you may have missed -- 82% of immigrants to Sweden who claim to be underage are really adults: https://www.rmv.se/aktuellt/det-visar-tre-manader-av-medicinska-aldersbedomningar/ If Google Translate is working properly, that's not what the article says. See also WP:SYNTH.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was planning to gradually update the page with corrections of the text, but that was the way that I understood the reference when I noted it down. I may of course have misunderstood. My ability to focus is not the best given my ADD. David A (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No encyclopaedic value. Biased extracts from one-sided collection of references. If they are really useful, the user can keep them offline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would prefer to be able to gradually improve upon the page. It is just a personal user page list, and is not doing any harm. David A (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning skeptical that it belongs, looks like a collection of POV links, noted for primary source material contained. This nomination surely relates to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  From links there, I get the impression of a POV war relating to Sweden.  This page of links looks unlikely to be directly related to improving the encyclopedia, but it is closely related to allegations and defences of WP:SYNTH.  I think this MfD should be deferred until after the ANI fuss resolves.  After that, I would remind that userspace is not for personal userpages on personal interests.  "Just a personal user page list" is not a good defence.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. If such link lists are not allowed by Wikipedia rules, I suppose that it can be removed. David A (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He is clearly using these links to make additions and changes to articles. As it's a working list, I'll not get too excited if another editor uses Google translate to decide the link is summarized wrong on a userpage. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is correct, yes. I was planning to gradually update the descriptions to turn more indepth and accurate, and the links to standard Wikipedia format. I am extremely overworked, so I was hoping that others could help me out with editing. David A (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same changes over a period of months, which keep getting reverted as unsuitable. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? I have not inserted part of these links into Wikipedia pages until the last 1-2 weeks as far as I remember. Before that I was just talking about them very occasionally. David A (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crime_in_Sweden&diff=prev&oldid=790405727
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=781417731
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crime_in_Sweden&diff=prev&oldid=774123089
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=prev&oldid=770984895
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_and_analysis_about_Islamic_fundamentalism&diff=prev&oldid=742738230
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eperoton&diff=prev&oldid=710814885
 * -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, but those are very sparse and old edits that I did not even remember that I had performed. For the past 8 months or so, I have almost exclusively made the occasional talk page post about this topic. David A (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * David A: are you open to other editors adding or subtracting from your list, challenging reliability, etc? There's some danger that this could devolve into a WP:NOTFORUM, but perhaps that openness would improve the list.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  00:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. That would be fine. David A (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now started to more appropriately modify the page. David A (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep–I had this page called to my attention a couple of weeks ago. While I agree that at first glance there seems to be a one-sidedness to the collection of links, I could not see how having this collection or "resource" in userspace violated a policy, since the purported purpose was to have references readily to hand for adding content. It seems to me that this is an allowed purpose under our user page policy. While perhaps slanted or cherry-picked, it does not seem to me to represent an attack page. On the other hand, there is no vital necessity to keep this list on-wiki; it could just as easily be kept somewhere else. [Whether there is a pattern of POV editing that goes with these links is a separate issue of editor behavior.]  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  23:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh. This appears to be a symptom of the WP:TE that is the focus of the current ANI. I do not think keeping or deleting this list is going to address the underlying issue one way or the other. If the ANI is closed with a recommendation to delete this I take no exception and if there is a topic ban this should probably be deleted to enforce the ban, but otherwise I don't see how removing this subpage will benefit WP. VQuakr (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleteas a collection of cherry-picked items that the editor wants to shoehorn into wherever they'll fit, as noted at WP:ANI. If he really needs the links, he can keep them on his own hard drive. If he wants to solicit others to do his dirty work, he'll need go ask them directly. If he's "extremely overworked" it's not Wikipedia's problem. --Calton | Talk 05:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no policy violation here, and personally I would hate to have user pages and their subpages held to the same standards as articles. The list is clearly intended for use on Wikipdia, so NOTWEBHOST or NOTFORUM doesn't apply, IMO. Yes, those links and the texts are POV, cherrypicked, often to non-RS and often misrepresenting what the sources say. But that is not a problem if they are checked and vetted before they are added to articles (or talk pages). Potentially even an opinion piece is a reliable source for the author's opinion, and for this page I think we should give the benefit of doubt. However, if this list is copied to an article as is, I wouldn't hesitate to remove it. Sjö (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Active user and in line with WP:UPYES. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 24 November 2017 (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.