Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/not ready yet/Israr ul Haq

 __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) 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/not ready yet/Israr ul Haq
Negative BLP. Copy of the main space article Israr ul Haq. Not edited since 2008. IQinn (talk) 22:16, 9 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) 00:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there is already an article about the subject in the mainspace, this userspace draft which hasn't been edited since 2008 should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment has Geo been asked why he wants to keep this around, when everything is now in the article? It seems unnecessary to me. It may not be exactly his preferred version, but his latest preferred version is in the mainspace article history. If he wishes to keep a reference copy elsewhere in case the mainspace article gets deleted, our license permits it--and if to safeguard his work against deletion, it would be much better protected against deletion off-wiki. But if he insists on keeping it here I do not see the sense of forcing him. It's not a BLP violation, as the material is accepted in the main article. False charges of BLP violation seem a little disruptive--there is no claim the article in mainspace is a BLP violation, so I do not see how this can be   DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 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.