Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review/Mohammed Ibrahim (Guantanamo witness)

 __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) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/review/Mohammed Ibrahim (Guantanamo witness)
Three year old abandoned article attempt about a person solely known through the interrogations of one Guantanamo detainee. Fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO quite badly. Fram (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, violates WP:BIO and WP:BLP. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification please -- WP:BIO seems to be pretty clear -- it seems to me that it concerns the notability of articles. This is a page of userspace notes.  I do not believe there is any requirement that any page of rough notes in userspace has to establish notability.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification please -- WP:BLP seems to concern biographies. On October 10, 2010 I had some aspects of policy drawn to my attention -- including WP:FAKEARTICLE.  On October 10 I looked at this userspace page, decided a FAKEARTICLE could be voiced over its state, so in this edit, I trimmed it, so it no longer looked like an article.  I honestly believe this page does not look like an article.  I honestly believe there is nothing in the current state of the article that lapses from BLP.  If this page really is such an obviously bad lapse from BLP it should be an easy matter to spell out how it lapses.  I request a civil, good faith explanation.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- there has been many recent challenges to userspace pages that, it seems to me, have tried to apply a more stringent standard to userspace notes than we apply in article space. Articles that trigger a concern that could lead to deletion are not deleted if those concerns are addressed.  But these nominations seems to be from the point of view that a userspace page that once triggered a concern should always be deleted, and should never be fixed, and should even be deleted after the concern has been adequately addressed.  WP:User pages says contributors have always been granted considerable leeway.  It seems to me that this implies contributors who employ userspace pages should be given a chance to address concerns.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a single page of yours has been deleted that could have existed as an article. So no more stringent standards have been applied at all. Apart from that, WP:BLP will always apply to a page titled "Mohammed Ibrahim (Guantanamo witness)" where said witness is a BLP. Note that this is quite clearly a fakearticle, being moved out of article space with the reason "Moving to article space. I started this article before there was a WP:BLP policy.", which also indicates that you were well aware that BLP applies to this page. Fram (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You write: "Not a single page of yours has been deleted that could have existed as an article." I told you I was concerned and confused by your efforts, because you seemed to be taking the position that every userspace page had to be intended to become an article.  You have been reminded that the second sentence of WP:User pages says, "Their main uses are communications, discussions, notices, trial workings and drafts, notes, and (limited) self disclosure if desired."  You denied you had ever said or implied any such thing.  But here you are again, implying any userspace page that doesn't look like it can become an article has to be deleted.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * YOu are misinterpreting my statement. You claimed that the rules applied to those userspace pages of yours that ended up at MfD were more strict than those applied to mainspace articles. This is incorrect, as it is quite clear that no pages have been deleted that could have survived as an article if they would have been moved to the mainspace (apart, of course, from those where a mainspace article already existed and your userspace page was just an older or less complete copy). My statements did not state or imply that any userspace page has to meet the requirements of articles. If that were the case, I could have nominated many, many pages I skipped in my nominations. The pages I nominated are not "communications, discussions, notices or self disclosure" (apart from one discussion which was an unattributed copy, but which has been kept after this was corrected). The pages I nominated where article attempts, many of them userfied articles (after being deleted through AfD, or after being tagged for serious problems). You are cherrypicking the userspace policy, and ignore all the references to storage of deleted content, favourite copies, ... The very high number and percentage of pages that end up deleted after discussion could perhaps indicate that your interpretation of the applicable policies is not shared by most other editors (and the vast number of pages deleted after AfD, even pages you created this year, is also an indication that the problem may not be with the nominations...). Fram (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "WP:BLP will always apply to a page titled 'Mohammed Ibrahim (Guantanamo witness)' where said witness is a BLP." You have made similar arguments before.  So, if this page had a different name you would not consider it a lapse from WP:BLP?  A rename is a simple thing to do.  Taking your stated concern at face value the obvious question seems to be why didn't you suggest renaming the userspace page?  Geo Swan (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "If A then B" doesn't equal "If not A then not B". The name is a clear indication of the BLP nature of the page. That doesn't mean that it is the only indication, or that just renaming it would solve this. I have no idea where you get that idea. I do believe though that it would be a very good idea if you tried to thoroughly comprehend our BLP policy, and applied it rigorously in all your writings on Wikipedia, since you are involved with contentious BLPs almost all the time, and you should know better after four or five years than to create articles like the one deleted at Articles for deletion/Fahd Saleh Al-Muhayani. Fram (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I request this discussion be relisted, not closed, so I can respond to the nominator's most recent comments... Geo Swan (talk) 22:04, 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).


 * Delete - has no chance at becoming an article due to 1E concerns. Either delete it or move it to mainspace so it can be quickly AfD'ed. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:STALEDRAFT 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:STALEDRAFT, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The proper standard for userspace notes on a uncovered topic is that is is reasonably possible that an article can be written in some reasonable period. It's not necessary to prove the article can be immediately written or that the subject will be fact be considered  notable  when it is. The length of reasonable period is defined buy the type of subject, and the reputability & experience of the editor. for these subjects, experience shows that information gradually becomes available. I personally have no doubt about the integrity of the editor and his ability to write good articles when it becomes possible to do so.  There are no BLP issues--what little there is, is a link to the documentation.  That there is a great deal of this material and he is the only one working on it here, is a reason to be as flexible as possible, as his work here is the best hope of ever getting acceptable articles.    DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me, if three years is not a reasonable period, then what is, in your opinion? As for "there are no BLP issues", I am rather amazed that WP:BLPPRIMARY is not known to you. Fram (talk) 07:48, 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?  05:51, 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) 13:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I put a reply in the other day to this but must have forgotten to hit save as its not even in the history. Anyways, Sven, Fram deserves a barnstar for wading through the shitpile of of Geo Swan's userspace while enduring withering (and baseless) criticisms from some corners for it. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 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?  20:22, 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.