Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/documents/Former GTMO Detainee Terrorism Trends

 __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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/documents/Former GTMO Detainee Terrorism Trends
Two year old page that links thirteen BLPs without any sources or other indication of what groups them ("Trends", apparently). The thirteen names come from the two first groups in Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism, but what the purpose of this unsourced BLP list is, is unclear, and it is not being worked on. Fram (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator's statement and per the fact that this has not been worked on for two years. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Cunard. -- IQinn (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The thirteen names on the list are the thirteen names from the similarly named Former Guantanamo Detainee Terrorism Trends. As with some other wikisource document I thought it was reasonable to use userspace to list the names of the individuals named on that document -- as they were spelled on that document.  In another recent discussion someone suggested that if names were on a wikisource document there was no way I could find any value having a list here on the wikipedia.  In reply I pointed out that wikisource is a whole other wiki.  That cross-wiki links are not bidirectional; that they don't render as redlinks, if the target article doesn't exist on the target wiki; that "what links here" doesn't work across wikis; that watchlists don't work across wikis.  Finally, creating a list, for rough work, here en.wikipedia.org, to verify that there articles for all 13 of these individuals, and that the spelling matches, or we create a redirect.  These are, I believe, perfectly valid reasons to have created this subpage.  If this is not perfectly compliant with WP:User pages I'd appreciate an explanation as to how it lapses from WP:User pages.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- In other discussions a contributor, the same contributor as above, seems to be making assertions on what kind of pages can remain in userspace that do not sound consistent with my understanding of WP:User pages. They seem to be saying:
 * They seem unprepared to see any pages remain in userspace, if their purpose wasn't immediately apparent -- to them;
 * They seem unprepared to see any pages remain in userspace, if they can't imagine how the page will be used in future;
 * There were some pages I said that, even though I hadn't made any changes to them, in years, I had consulted them, and used them for reference. This contributor demanded I prove I had used those pages.
 * This contributor, while they have gone on record that some pages should be deleted because they don't state their context, others should be deleted because they have too much context, and look too much like real articles.
 * Now it is quite possible that I don't understand WP:User pages, but it seems to me that any pages that otherwise comply with WP:User pages, and other policies, should be allowed to remain, provided a good faith contributor asserts that they expect the page to be potentially useful to them for purposes consistent with building the wikipedia, it should be permitted to remain. I don't think it should matter if a casual passer-by asserts they can't imagine how it will be useful.
 * In the case of this particular page -- it is scaffolding. A serious project may be aided by scaffolding, pages that won't ever be used in article space, but that support the creation of material in article space.  Sometimes the scaffolding won't be necessary after the day it is first used.  Other times it makes sense to keep it around, even if the scaffolding page isn't edited.  :Some time ago, when I worked as a computer programmer, I learned the value of keeping around my scaffolding.  Sometimes projects go smoothly.  Other times they don't.  Sometimes one has to rework things, back up, re-perform all the same checks you did at an earlier stage.  And, in those cases it is really helpful if you don't have to re-invent or re-create all your scaffolding, all over again.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I have explicitly listed the wikisource page this userpage is related to. If I am not mistaken, this page of scaffolding does comply with policy.  If it does comply with policy, I would like it to remain.  If it doesn't comply with policy I'd appreciate an explanation as to how it lapses from policy.  If it doesn't comply with policy, perhaps, once how it is lapsed is explained, it can be alered so it does comply with policy.  My understanding of WP:User pages is that contributors should, generally, be offered an explanation as to how pages are seen to lapse from policy, and if the policy concern is a valid one, they should generally be allowed to decide whether it is worthwhile to do the work to bring those pages into compliance.  I am not disputing that serious problems, like genuine copyright violations, or genuine attack pages, are eligible for summary deletion.  But, without claiming to be an expert, my reading of WP:User pages is that it strongly suggests that, even more than in article space, good faith contributors should generally be permitted to try to address those less serious policy concerns.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I know I don't own the pages I work on in userspace. I don't create userspace pages that are intended to be confusing.  I am happy to share the use of any pages with any good faith contributor who wonders whether userspace pages I use might also be useful for them.  And some of the userspace pages I use most, that I plan to use for a long period of time, do have plenty of explanations as to how the page could be useful.  But my understanding of WP:User pages is that pages otherwise consistent with policy, aren't problems, even if their purpose is not immediately apparent to casual passers-by.  I am going to repeat I am happy to try to explain how pages have been useful, or how I expect them to be useful, to any good faith contributor who is thinking of using the pages themselves -- or to any contributor who has another good-faith reason to ask.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have explained how the page was useful to you two years ago. Any reason why this list of thirteen bluelinks to BLPs was of any use after that initial check? Fram (talk) 07:55, 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.