Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brook DeWalt

 __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 - However, it would seem that the whole of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo (and sub pages) may be worth looking at again in the future. The suggestion by many that this information may be better kept offline, nearly made this a delete closure. But I gave WP:USER more weight in this case. Since we should presume that this information is being assimilated with the goal of proper and accurate article building. Which is common practice. (Though, as a gesture of goodwill, it might not be a bad idea if User:Geo Swan maintained the less-than-active pages in a blanked state - Though that is of course not mandated by this closure at this time.) Note: I didn't relist as User:Geo Swan requested, since it's been open more than 7 days since the request. - jc37 07:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brook DeWalt
Abandoned, one year old WP:FAKEARTICLE about a non notable person. He is cited a few times in the press, whih is normal for a spokesperson. However, he is never the subject of any coverage, not even for a paragraph or so. Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if this may not ever be an article on it's own, the Guantanamo prisoners and their treatment area notable subject, and it is reasonable to assume that this information might be included in an article or articles related to that subject.  It seems to me to fit into ...trial workings and drafts, notes... - an acceptable use for user subpages.  It is also clearly marked as NOT AN ARTICLE, which I think exempts it from being a WP:FAKEARTICLE...  I think it should be kept.  -Addionne (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cunard and nom. IQinn (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it can be taken offline. We don't need to host a BLP on someone like this in userspace forever. Gigs (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but time is running out. This is one of many marginal drafts by the editor, with very little progress in a long time. It would be better is the editor kept some of them offline, and move online those he wants to work on. --  SPhilbrick  T  16:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Request to possible closing administrators -- nominator and another contributor have nominated a flood of pages and articles for deletion, far more than anyone can reasonably be asked to effectively respond to in the time allotted. Note: I accept, at face value, our nominator's assurances that all of their recent flood of were sincerely intended.  Nevertheless, there has  not been anywhere near the time necessary to address these xfd.  So I request a relisting, not a closure.   Geo Swan (talk) 00:01, 15 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.