Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/The voyage of the Berserk II

 __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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/The voyage of the Berserk II
Not a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming an article. Normally I give userspace pages a fair chance to be developed, but there has to be something on which an article can be based. In this case, we have a canadian government report from May 2009, cited in Goernment documents from December 2009. A year has passed since then, and this document has not been mentioned, never mind commented on, by anyone or anything except those few government documents, if Google (Books, Scholar, News Archive, ... can be trusted (e.g. ). Fram (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - No reason to delete without discussion with the user concerned. This appears to be part of your personal crusade against Geo Swan. Rich Farmbrough, 08:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep -- Nomination claims "this document has not been mentioned". I have pointed out to the nominator, on multiple occasions, that WP:User pages recommends giving good faith contributors "considerable leeway" in how they employ userspace pages.  I have told our nominator in several of the flood of mfd they have initiated, that they are basing their deletion nominations on concerns that could be fixed with trivial efforts.  In some of those mfd their concern could be fixed with a simple rename.  I could have simply named this userspace page User:Geo Swan/Berserk II.  Maybe non-Canadians don't recognize that challenges to Canada's sovereignty over the Northwest Passage is a serious issue in Canada.  This voyage, The voyage of the Berserk II, the voyage of a small vessel, through the Northwest Passage -- without Canadian permission -- was regarded as a serious incident. Therefore the voyage is notable, and a worthy candidate for a draft intended for article space.  I believe I have found lots of references that show this voyage is notable.  Unfortunately, a flood of mfd, some of which are similarly premature, precludes me from further fleshing it out to the point it could be moved into article space at this time.  In general I would really prefer contributors who have concerns over the names of userspace pages I employ, simply contact me, rather than nominate the pages for deletion.  When I move the page to article space, if they think I chose a bad name, they are free to go through the normal channels to get the page renamed.  They are even free to suggest the page be deleted due to a bad name -- if they honestly think they could defend this as a deletion justification at afd.  Geo Swan (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep though the individuals are not named I can see that labelling people as criminals does raise BLP issues. However the draft is referenced, neutrally written and does not gratuitously name the crew members. If this were in the mainspace I'm not sure it would survive AFD, but this is currently a userspace draft.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that the article draft up for AfD is about the Government document, and that none of the added sources are about that document at all, but about the event that lead to that document. An article on that topic may or may not be acceptable in the mainspace: an article on the document still has zero chance of becoming an article. Fram (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that there was a related AFD. However this is a sandbox draft, my concern is not over whether it is ready for mainspace but whether it contains material that would justify an MFD deletion. I've now checked through the references I can check on the PC I'm logged in on at present, but I can't check the pdf references. So far the non pdf sources only refer to some of these individuals as Hells Angels, can someone who can open pdfs just check for the other BLP issue?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant MFD, not AFD, sorry. Fram (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. But as this a sandbox, if in your view the material would be "better used for an article on the incident rather than an article on the document", Why not just suggest that to Geo Swan? After all one of the advantages of a sandbox is the flexibility to make such changes.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The material added after the MfD started can be used for such an article. The original info and the page up for deletion was not really useful for that, it was a page about a non notable document. The advantage of userspace over mainspace is that one can still easily change the focus of the page during the MfD of course, making the discussion rather moot. Fram (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep User space, does not warrant deletion at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a valid user space draft. By the way the skipper of the Berserk II has his own article at Jarle Andhøy and it appears that two other crew members are mentioned. Not sure that one of them are referenced though. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep From Fram's statement on Dec 12 a little above, I gather they are withdrawing the MfD.?   DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep At this point I don't even care about the merits, I am just assuming blatantly bad faith on the part of Fram. The actions of this user are reprehensible, nonconstructive, and decidedly incivil. If this continues, Geo Swan, or anyone else, has excellent grounds for a case against Fram at whatever noticeboard they so choose.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:52, 18 December 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.