Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ekantik/Shilpa Shetty

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 02:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ekantik/Shilpa Shetty


Userspace draft from 2007 of Shilpa Shetty. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, a WP:UP#COPIES violation discovered below. ignore or redirect . Is of no problem in userspace.  Was a valid and proper use of userspace.  It is rude to imply that they did not manage their userspace responsibly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (A) The page claims it to be the user page not a draft. (B) The article exists in mainspace. WP:UP is pretty clear for a reason and while a temporary draft is fine, it's been over eight years since that draft was created and all that's been done is other people having to make template and parameter change on one more page for no good reason. The editor hasn't been here since June 2013. If it's "rude" to actually deal with a duplicate after three years, then literally nothing will be accomplished here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (A) Your nomination stated that it was a draft.
 * (B) Your nomination made no mention of copied mainspace material.
 * (C) there is nothing here needing accomplishment, you are just obsessed with your busywork, which would be fine if you kept it to yourself, but no you insist in pushing it through community processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it was copied or not. There exists a mainspace version of this topic. This hasn't been touched in seven years. Even if the editor returns, why would anyone want them to work on that draft? There is literally no reason to have it around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as an 8 year old copy of a mainspace article that is not needed. It's about time someone started an ANi thread about SmokeyJoe's attacks on other editors for their efforts to clean up things. He sits in judgement telling others how to use their time and firing insults. If someone does not like MfD activity, go do something else already. No one is commenting on how someone manages their userspace - which they don't own anyway. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as obsolete copy of mainspace article. On a different note, opposing based on rudeness is head shakingly bizarre. Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a straight-up copy of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shilpa_Shetty&oldid=101739913 this revision] of Shilpa Shetty ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shilpa_Shetty&oldid=101739913&diff=102156608 here's the diff to demonstrate it]). WP:UP says delete. Massive trout for SmokeyJoe for not noticing this blatant copy was a copy before !voting, and then turning combative when it's pointed out. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that trout, it is the nominator who should substantiate, or even mention, mainspace copying when making the nomination. He did neither.  delete not that it is discovered.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So if it wasn't copied from mainspace, you would be voting keep? What difference does it make? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Copied material is an attribution hazard. Once it is older than the time to the next mainspace edit, it is problematic and shouldn't be used again.  If there is no problem, then redirection is the most helpful and easiest thing to do.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your !vote was "ignore" or redirect. Why would you want to ignore the draft then? It's not the attribution that matters. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Copyrights is very important. It is legally required.  But the fine line boundaries are very grey. Wikipedia should go to great lengths to err on the side of compliance, because the standard maintained internal is one that outside reusers of Wikipedia will look at.  On the other hand, an old redundant page in a part of the project that no one else looks at, and isn't even indexed by major search engines, can be safely ignored.  It is not important.  Having found it, a redirect will help the next unlikely person to find it, or its author.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 21 March 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.