Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp)

 __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  No consensus - Noting that it would seem that the whole of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo (and sub pages) may be worth looking at again in the future. Also, I looked over the AfD: a single nom, 2 relists, and a single additional delete comment. That said, in deference to the deletion, I will be blanking the page. Please do not unblank unless intending immediate non-minor improvement of the page. - jc37 07:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp)
Entirely based on one controversial primary sources. Clear delete at Articles for deletion/Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp). Possible BLP issues. IQinn (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * keep it is not productive to interfere with an established contributor who has a very strong track record for bringing material up to mainspace standards. The material as a while is being worked on--ity is unreasonable to expect an editor to improve all of the material simultaneously. There is certainly potential for an article as sources develop.   DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to vote delete, just because your keep argument is so blatantly wrong, but that would be pointy... First of all, comment on the edits, not on the editor. We don't keep pages because the editor does good work elsewhere. And his "very strong track record"? Apart from the many pages deleted through MfD recently, there are many pages deleted through AfD as well, apart from this very one. Things like Articles for deletion/Avaz Shoyusupov or Articles for deletion/Abdul Hakim Jan (Argandab druglord) show that he he has a strong record of bringing material up to mainspace, but that not all of it is up to mainspace standards. An example of his work on previously deleted articles is User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/David L. Taylor, deleted through AfD in 2006, userfied in March 2010, and then totally abandoned, until I nominated it for MfD, after which it was finally worked upon, though only to add an image... What is the point of asking for a page to be usefied years after it was deleted, if you then don't work on it? Why can't he wait with such userfications until he has the time and the sources needed for it? All this does is keeping favourite copies of deleted content in userspace, which is a very clear violation of our userspace policy. Fram (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * when dealing with material in user space we often need to discuss the intent of the editor. In considering whether an article draft or a userified article is a genuine and reasonable try, we can only judge this by considering the editor';s work in general. Yes, some of geo's work has been deleted, but most of it has not been, and so there is a reasonable chance he will be able to build this up again. If everything he wrote was always deleted, it would be another matter.    DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually checked his deleted contributions? That's not "some" of his work, that's quite a lot of it. You have seen Articles for deletion/Bostan v. Bush. That's again more than 40 of his articles where everyone agrees that they are not "up to mainspace standards". I don't believe that your keep reason reflects reality here. Fram (talk) 11:00, 13 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) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Users don't get to keep their favored versions of articles around in user-space, or articles that never have an likely will never exist due to BLP or Notability issues, esp for this length of time. I'd like this "delete" to be applied to all Geo Swan subspace MfDs, rather than paste paste paste all day, too. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. This onslaught of MfD's against this user seems pretty ridiculous.  Snotty Wong   prattle 00:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This MfD is not against a user who has rejected countless friendly requests form all parts of the Wikipedia community over a period from over a year to clean up his user space. Please do not attack people because he ignored these requests. I request you base your !vote on content base arguments or it should be discounted. This previous deleted page is entirely based on one controversial primary sources. Clear delete at Articles for deletion/Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp) and has possible BLP issues. IQinn (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the essay It's about time we ganged up on this bastard. Hum? No such essay? There should be 'cause that's what is going on here. OK, turn my position from delete to comment. Once someone writes such a essay and we can use that to go after established contributors who have a very strong track record for bringing material up to mainspace standards but has rejected countless friendly requests form all parts of the Wikipedia community over a period from over a year to clean up his user space, even if they additionally explain their subpage usage at User:Geo Swan/An introduction to the notes on subpages under User:Geo Swan. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of 'em! Geo Swan User namespace and Geo Swan User talk namespace. But there is a lot less of em! Wikipedia namespace Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan. Good thing Nuggetboy is on the hunt: User:Nuggetboy/Work/Geo Swan double redirects. So is this guy User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/NotATopic/GeoSwan, this guy User talk:68.239.79.82/GeoSwan. But they needs to look further (see the personal template in template space! Template:Editnotices/Group/User:Geo Swan). Check out this Geo Swan AfD). Not sure what User talk:Geoswan1103 is about.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:23, 14 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.