Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hobbiticus/VoiceChatter

User:Hobbiticus/VoiceChatter



 * 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 per U1. –xenotalk 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User page is duplicate of page at VoiceChatter. Not a workspace draft, new content from this user is going to the page in the main wiki. Miami33139 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you ask the user about this? Chillum  01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The user hasn't edited since August. However, Miami33139 did place MfD notices on his talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Which means he is likely using this properly as a reference.  No reason to believe the use here is improper, hence lacking a reason to delete, default to keep.  Collect (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The material on this page was originally drafted in Hobbiticus's userspace here. He then copy-and-pasted it into a mainspace article, VoiceChatter. A couple of minutes later, he copy-and-pasted it into the nominated page. Why? I have no idea. As a new user, maybe he didn't fully understand how Wikipedia works. In any case, there's no need for a userspace draft due to the existence of an article in the mainspace that he can edit at any time, as he last did in August. Anyway, to avoid violating WP:FAKEARTICLE, this should be deleted, especially given the fact that Hobbiticus may not have understood what he was doing when he created it. I find Collect's argument rather unconvincing. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per my thoughts here, I think it should be deleted if page is untouched for six months and the user is inactive for 3 months, and kept otherwise.  The conditions for deletion seem to be met.  Work on this archive of a version of the live page represents a hazard to compliance with our copyrights.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per SmokeyJoe, except I usually give them 6 months, active or not. Userspace forks of pages do indeed create attribution problems and potentially confuse less savvy users.  SmokeyJoe, there seemed to be pretty good support for the idea of speedy deletion there.  I know we talked about maybe even making it a bot job, since it's something a bot could easily do automatically.  If you ever bring this idea or a related one up again please let me know so that I can come offer comment.  A bot could even be prod-like in that if the user objects to what the bot did, we'd automatically restore the page no questions asked.  Gigs (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the user is active, I think we should be polite, and ask the user about it before MfDing (or speedying). I think "blanking" is a bold but reasonable way to ask the user if he really wants it live.  If it stays blanked, everyone is happy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any reason to keep this article, and if I need to work on a "branch" for the mainstream article, I can always copy+paste it to my user page again.  I am indeed new to wikipedia and wikis in general, and I did not know that user pages would be up for such review.  I appreciate the discussion though.  Shall I just go ahead and delete it (as well as the other almost-duplicate page in my user space)?  Or is there some sort of process that you go through? Hobbiticus (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do the needful. –xenotalk 15:28, 15 December 2009 (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.