Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edwardtbabinski

 __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. As an editorial decision, I'm going to blank the page, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Edwardtbabinski
Relisted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)



Using userpage as a blog. User has long since departed the project.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 
 * Keep - It looks to me like an acceptable use of user space for someone who was an active contributor. Am I missing something?  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 20:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - It appears that I was. Copyright infringement seems like a pretty good reason for deletion.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 18:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per the copyright infringement of articles from http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/2006/10/20/an-alternative-to-wikipedia and http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39299490,00.htm. Delete also per Sven Manguard's nomination of the page for deletion per WP:NOTBLOG. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The copyright violations have been removed from the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 's nomination implicitly referenced WP:NOTBLOG. His deletion rationale remains applicable after the removal of the copyright violations. Cunard (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to the WP:NOTBLOG issue, I note that while the chronological format may bear some resemblance to a blog, most of the content on this page is Wikipedia-related; besides a listing of the pages the user has worked on, much of the rest consists of comments about whether certain links should have been allowed on a Wikipedia page. Since most of the content consists of "Notes related to [the editor's] Wikipedia work and activities" which is allowed per WP:UPYES, the page should be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A BLP violation on the page ("The only question remains, why have I wasted such an incredible amount of time, on such a wee tiny little troll?"), which is placed below the name of a living person and a link to the living person's website is unacceptable. Using a Wikipedia user page as a blog to denigrate others is highly inappropriate. WP:UP prohibits "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons". Because of the BLP violation and the copyright violations on the old revisions, this page and its history should be oversighted. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See Requests for oversight. "Suppressible material and links to it should never  be posted on-wiki or in other public venues."  Copyright violations do not require oversight.  If you feel this page contains BLP material requiring oversight, you should request oversight and not advertise the issue publicly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the policy. I have reported content at MfD to oversight before (such as user pages of minors with excessive personally identifying information), and they have told me to let the MfDs run. I no longer bother to notify oversight when a page is at MfD. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia related content. jorgenev 03:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Edwardtbabinski contains a BLP violation and and a berating of an editor "who removed the two non commercial links which were in dispute for over 12 hours of my time ..." Below the editor's comments, the user page mocks the editor with "This is hilarious" and calls the editor as someone with "notable immaturity" on Wikipedia. Per WP:UP, "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons" is forbidden. Per Biographies of living persons and Oversight #2, the BLP violation mentioned above should be oversighted. Because of the page's current problematic content and the copyright violations in the history, the page is best deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There might be something appropriate on the page, but its not obvious.  There are however obvious problems.  Given that the user is inactive for years, just delete.  If the user returns, he can request emailing of the deleted content.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Relates intimately to Wikipedia, entirely appropriate for a userpage. Buddy431 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per SmokeyJoe. This is a 2007 page and given the specific objections explained above, I can't see any good reason to keep it. -- Klein zach  03:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The attribution tag, cc-by-sa-2.5, placed on the user page may give the closing admin pause when closing the debate. However, the user has duplicated the statement on the user talk page. The user page therefore contains no useful content and due to the heavily problematic content I mentioned above, should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2011 (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.