Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/not ready yet/United States v. Nazario (2008)

 __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. --RL0919 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/not ready yet/United States v. Nazario (2008)
Abandoned half year old duplicate of Jose Luis Nazario, Jr.. Perhaps the real article could be better placed at the title of this subpage, per WP:BLP1E, but having what is basically a six month old copy of the mainspace page around in userspace is not the way to achieve this. Fram (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, as an article on the subject already exists, and this copy is not required. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the mainspace article Jose Luis Nazario, Jr.. It looks not completely redundant.  6 months in userspace for an article about a trial, where there is no strong BLP concern (the person has a mainspace article containing all mentioned BLP content plus more), does not require deletion.  However, in this case, with the trial and the person being so strongly connected (close to BLP1E even), I think the two should be merged, and I don't see why the trial material and references are suitable for mainspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Effectively redundant. Inclined to agree with Fram about moving the mainspace page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete without redirect. The mainspace article contains every single fact in the draft article; the only differences between them in which the two articles share information is in NPOV presentation—the mainspace article is more neutral in its characterizations. There should not be a redirect because a) the article is in mainspace, not XFD; b) the location of the draft article is not a likely search term; c) it's not a pseudo-namespace redirect; and d)cross-namespace redirects which do not aid navigation are generally frowned upon, since they actually hinder navigation for those who are not familiar with Wikipedia.  Horologium  (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This copy is not necessary. Nobody will ever use this as a search term, so a redirect is most certainly not needed.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable -- Eugene Fidell, who is the USA's leading expert on military law, noted that this 2008 case was the very first time a former GI had been charged under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000. Is that notable?  I think so.  Given that notability, or a lack thereof, is not grounds for deletion of userspace notes, I believe this useful page of notes should not be deleted.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time of the nomination, which "notes" were not included in the existing article? You are now arguing to keep this page, based on arguments which have nothing to do with the nomination. Instead of this, you could just as well improve (and, as suggested in the nomination as well, perhaps move) the actual article, where everyone can use your efforts, instead of just you alone. Please read the arguments given for the deletion nomination. Fram (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The USA v Nazario case, which triggered comments from the Senator who introduced the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, and triggered comments from Eugene Fidell, who may be the USA's most respected expert on military law, is a separate topic from the individual Jose Luis Nazario, Jr.. Commentators on other cases are citing this case. I believe that it is a disservice to force readers interested in military law go to the article full of details on an individual for information about the case.  When I put the information on the actual case in article space you, or anyone else, is entitled to argue for a merge to the article on the individual.  I'll be entitled to argue against that.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect per nom and Horologium. IQinn (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin -- since I made recent additions to the page I request this mfd be relisted. Geo Swan (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)`
 * Keep - there are no BLP issues here. This is valuable working documentation, which Geo has built up with painstaking meticulousness.  Much of the PD material is being moved to Wikisource, and that is fine, let Geo proceed with that at his own pace. Rich Farmbrough, 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Move to United States v. Nazario (2008) per the recent additions by . If notability is not established, I recommend a listing at AfD at editorial discretion. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 10 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?  05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the nominations are correct (and considering that the vast majority ended in a delete, they might well be), why should I stop? If I notice that many pages in a certain group are problematic, then why should I stop nominating them after one, or five, or ten? Why not continue until all the problematic ones are gone? You are free to start a case against me, but you will need to provide some evidence for it, not just a feeling that cleaning up the mess someone else created is "reprehensible, nonconstructive and decidedly incivil". Have you seen (e.g. at Geo Swan's talk page) how many mainspace pages of his have been nominated for deletion and deleted? Do you know of any other editor who has had so many mainspace pages deleted after many AfDs? Doesn't this suggest that the problem perhaps is more with the person creating these pages, and not with those people nominating them for deletion? Your speedy keep basically is a personal attack that should be disregarded by whoever closes this discussion... Fram (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything but the four noms I commented on, and what I see there is one active user making judgments on the workspace of another active user. It's not like Geo Swan hasn't been on Wikipedia in six months, this is one person biting at the heels of another person and their workspace. I cannot help but get the feeling that all these deletions are personally motivated by Fran. I cannot help but feel that Fran is pursuing some sort of vendetta against Geo Swan. Now I might be completely wrong, but this whole thing appears to me like one powerful long term user waging war with another powerful long term user over trivialities.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:19, 21 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.