Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Davidcannon/Incubator1

 __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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Davidcannon/Incubator1


WP:UP violation (of MtDna haplogroups by populations, now deleted). Content is a textbook WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA violation itself. Appears to be a mere restatement of the supplementary data tables from the single study it references. Really doesn't seem likely Davidcannon is ever going to do anything with this considering his pattern of contributions. I know I might get criticized for nominating this so soon, but there really isn't any objectively reasonable likelihood that this will ever become an article. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The page is full protected oddly enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is pretty weird. The origin page was very inactive as well, so I'm not sure what that was done to prevent. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep user is a current administrator and page creation notes indicate that it will be for an article, "too soon" for this nomination - if it goes stale for a year it MIGHT be worth revisiting. — xaosflux  Talk 02:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Except it violates WP:NOT and violates WP:UP (and moreover violates WP:ATTREQ; it wasn't easy to find what he copied this from). We're not talking about a stale draft here. This is a straight-up copy-paste move of mainspace content that was never even touched. It is not and never has been used "for short-term, active drafting or experimental purposes" (WP:UP). That he's a "current" admin isn't germane, though I'll point out that this is an editor with a track record of going almost completely inactive for years. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment : I intend to use the data in a table/article of my own — an article that will be the counterpart of the one of Y-chromosome haplogroups. David Cannon (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any article incorporating this massive table would surely violate WP:RAWDATA. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to incorporate the table itself in the article. I intend to glean information from it for use in a table of my own, which will be only a part of the article. The reason why it's here is that when I'm writing the article, I want it at my fingertips.

Besides, whilst it is in my user space, I suggest you worry about things that are in article space instead. There's plenty of rubbish there to keep you busy. If and when I move something to article space that you object to, then you'll have valid cause to complain. But a clipping I've got in my own space for the purpose of research? I wish I had time on my hands to worry about stuff like that. David Cannon (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'm not sure why it's protected but fine, it is. It's still an unattributed copy so it's going to be remade into something else, the original version will have to be restored and merged into it. I'd call this a userification attempt and I say restore the original mainspace edits and move it to this page so that the full history is intact. After that, no one will care unless and until David brings it back into mainspace. Being an administrator doesn't give carte blanche to randomly protect your own subpages and to ignore attribution requirements. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak keep with a removal of protection now that the history has been properly done. Protection is being misused here in my opinion but this isn't WP:RFPP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ricky + nom.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep . Reasonable leeway in userspace for an active Wikipedian.  Just because the material is not suitable to be a stand alone article (obviously!) doesn't mean it is not allowed as notes in userspace.  Stop harassing other editors and find something useful to do.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an unattributed UP copy of a probably copied-and-pasted pure dataset that hasn't been touched and shows no indication of being touched in the future. This ticks just about every box we have. I mean, I guess at least it isn't blatant advertising? The harassment argument is just a weird non-sequitur. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a data table. Data tables (compiled according to simple logic) are not creative content and are not copyrightable. Advertising?  I don't see the advertising angle, can you help me there?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was an advertising problem. I said at least it isn't blatant advertising. It ticks just about every other box for deletion. UP#COPIES doesn't purely rest on copyright issues. This is a wholesale copy of a mainspace article. But let's take your word for it that it's a simple, noncopyrightable data table sorted according to simple logic: In that case, WP:RAWDATA applies all the more! Certainly, userspace might be used to draft things that contain or rely on raw data, but that's not what's happening here. There is no reasonable hope of this ever being touched, just looking at the creator's track record, and the fact that it's full-protected. Look, you can't have this both ways. It can't be both exempt from UP#COPIES as uncopyrightable, and also exempt from WP:RAWDATA as somehow being part of the drafting of a Wikipedia article. Even having responded to this MfD, David hasn't even touched the page at all. Is he active or inactive? Is he using this or not using this? Certainly some leeway must be given, but this oversteps that leeway. As a current admin, David is fully capable of accessing the deleted page should he, for some reason, desire to use the data table in the future. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to give you that point "It can't be both exempt from UP#COPIES as uncopyrightable, and also exempt from WP:RAWDATA as somehow being part of the drafting of a Wikipedia article." I should probably apologise because you did essentially make that point in the second sentence of your nomination.  Yes, what possible use could he have for this data?  I'll withdraw the "keep".  I can't see any proper reason for hosting this material.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * comment. I don't mind keeping it for a while longer. I do think it is unnusual to have a user draft, or reference data, protected. So I ask User:Davidcannon if thyere is any reason to its protection and if you object to it being unprotected? - Nabla (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Except the text was created in mainspace by User:Galician77. So this is either a massive GFDL violation for failing to the include the actual contributors or raw data that doesn't need the contribution history. This was copied and protected in January even though the mainspace version existed without comment and was only listed for deletion in April. Even if the page wasn't deleted, this version would be subject to deletion per WP:UP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The page protection is fairly moot - this is in userspace. — xaosflux  Talk 01:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * can you point the PermaLink from where this was created by another user - I'm all for getting a consistent history documented. — xaosflux  Talk 01:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The deleted mainspace version was created by a number of editors (fixing links and making it sortable) but the majority was by User:Galician77. This version is exactly the same byte-by-byte text as the one in this place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did some wikimagic and put the history in to User:Davidcannon/Incubator1. — xaosflux  Talk 04:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Now we just need to wait for someone not involved to come around and close this one way or the other. — xaosflux  Talk 04:06, 17 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.