Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/An experiment -- are 90 percent of new articles junk?

 __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  Keep - jc37 06:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/An experiment -- are 90 percent of new articles junk?
This "userspace draft" is a three year old copied (part of a) discussion, which lacks editing history and so on, which makes it very hard to a) judge that what is posted here is the actual discussion and b) attribute the text to the correct poster (since the bottom half largely lacks any signatures, making it very hard to track who said what). The actual discussion, as it originally happened, shoud still be at the page where it happened, and can be read there. Keeping three year old coies around serves no purpose. Fram (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is an unaltered copy of the original exchange. Geo Swan (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I added diffs to the individual original comments. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reason that you couldn't just create a redirect to the full discussion, instead of keeping this around for three years as a bad duplicate? Fram (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unnecessary copy of User talk:Coren/Brahim Yadel. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment; I'm not sure it's necessary to delete this, even though it's clear that it's redundant. Certainly, if the conversation was deemed worthy of preservation for their reference, there is no harm in keeping a personal copy around.  I might decide to clean up my userspace someday.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you may not. User talk pages may not be deleted. Fram (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just incorrect. See comment below.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence of this below, as you are wrong. Fram (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Coren above - this is a conversation that involved Geo Swan - however with it being on Cunard's subpage, it could be theoretically deleted at any time. (It does not seem to be in Coren's archive)  If he wants to keep it, and it doesn't violate anything at WP:User pages then why not?  Essentially it states his opinions and theories on editing - which is acceptable.  -Addionne (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it could not be deleted. User talk pages are never to be deleted. Fram (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding policy. The user talk page is generally never deleted for a number of reasons, none of which apply to random subpages that just happens to be in the "User talk:" namespace.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show me the policy where this is allowed or done. There is no reason to delete pages that contain edits by other editors, G7 or other reasons don't apply here. I hope you don't delete user talk subpages where there are multiple editors involved, as such deletions are against policy. See WP:UP for this. Fram (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fram, user talk pages aren't usually deleted, but they can still be deleted within policy. It's very rare that the user talk page is deleted (usually only for RTV or other such things), as WP:UP states. However, it also refers only to "User talk pages and user talk archives", not any random talk page of a user subpage. I can, for example, delete this (granted, it would probably be under G5) if I didn't want it any more. In short, I agree with Coren. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You may agree, but you would be wrong. The next section, on subpages, states that "subpages that have not had other significant contributors" can be deleted (my emphasis), not just any subpage you feel like deleting. That two or more people agree on an incorrect policy interpretation is irrelevant, they are still wrong. Fram (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also note the sentence there, "Subpages tagged for deletion will be deleted if there is no overriding reason the page must be kept." Unless a user talk subpage contains any important discussion, it can still be deleted. I am not saying that user talk subpages should always be deleted, I am simply saying that your statement above, "No, it could not be deleted. User talk pages are never to be deleted" is wrong. They are not usually deleted, but they can be in certain circumstances. I think there's a confusion between any subpage in namespace 3 and a subpage in namespace three containing non-trivial discussion. Obviously, the latter would be kept in most circumstances. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unnecessary copy, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and the fact that any user should have plenty of room on their home computer to keep diaries and copies of things that remind them on things that they think they have learned from certain interactions on Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As it's been clearly marked as an archive, and as long as it stays unmodified, it seems fine to me. In reality, all archives are unnecessary since history is always there, yet people regularly archive their talk pages.  These copies kept as a redundant convenience are tolerated. Gigs (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Material relevant to project analysis.  This is not even leeway, this is encouraged.  Copies of someone else's user space material is certainly OK.  Another's userspace is could be CSD#U1-d at any time, or worse, the user might try to vanish, which makes accessing their material very difficult.  There are no space of performance concerns.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As is long standing practice, and as has been confirmed by recent events, user talk pages are not eligible under U1 or any other speedy criterion. Duplicating such pages is in no way encouraged by any policy or guideline, although it apparently is encouraged by some people who should know better. Fram (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that we were strictly talking about nothing but copied stuff from someone's main talk page. If that's the case, then yes, the material is not supposed to be deleted, although sometimes it is allowed to be, and sometimes it is anyway.  But even if the page is never deleted, any user is free to copy and reuse material in any way they wish, with attribution, and may do so within the project as long as it is for the benefit of the project.  I think copying the material is perfectly reasonable even if only to make accessing it more convenient.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about a copy of material from a main talk page. It is not clear that CSD#U1 does not apply to the talk page of a user subpage.  I think the current RFC needs clarification.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no distinction between the main talk page, and other user talk pages, in the U1 rules: "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. In exceptional cases user talk pages may be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion (see right to vanish); they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. " User talk pages may never be deleted through U1, and very rarely through other means. Fram (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is the rule, and it seems well supported at the RTV RFC.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep harmless. since the material is at  it's technically unnecessary to copy it here, but if Geo finds it convenient I see no reason to interfere. Indeed, considering the nom is currently trying to delete many pages from Geo's user space on different reasons from this, trying to remove this  this one also seems like wasting effort on something which doesn't actually improve Wikipedia.    DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I have no problem with your keep opinion per se, I fail to see the relevance of my other nominations for this one. You state that "tis one also seems like wasting effort on somthing which doesn't actually improve Wikipedia" (emphasis mine), suggesting that my other nominations, which largely result in deletions after all, are also incorrect. It also raises the question of why you waste effort on trying to keep something which doesn't actually improve Wikipedia. It is no good lecturing other people on where they should direct their efforts if you don't even follow your own advice... Fram (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't improve Wikipedia by deleting things that aren't harming anyone or breaking any rules. You do improve it by stopping people from doing that, since it waste everyone's time and may serve to upset editors who don't like seeing their stuff destroyed and thus drive them away.   D r e a m Focus  11:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep People can archive discussions they've had on their talk page. Nothing wrong with that.   D r e a m Focus  11:36, 12 November 2010 (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.