Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jooler sub-pages


 * 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 debate was. keep, as there is an implication that the user will be working on these pages. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jooler/List of interesting or unusual place names
I am also including the following pages: One Night In Hackney  303  00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant AfDs are:
 * Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names
 * Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects
 * Articles for deletion/List of films featuring independent body parts

These were recreated as GFDL violations in userspace, per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive103, and in fact the "interesting or unusual place names" is probably still a GFDL violation now. You can see Jooler's reaction to the films articles being deleted here. There's been no attempt to work on any of these articles, and looking at the AfDs I doubt it is possible to create versions that would address the deletion reasons. Deleted content shouldn't be left in userspace indefinitely, especially content which isn't likely to go back into mainspace at all. One Night In Hackney 303  00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One might note that it was One Night In Hackney that originally proposed the deletion of the film lists. Jooler (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all, blatant attempt to circumvent AFD, all are GFDL violations . --Core desat 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No - Each article has a full history - they were justifiably user-ified and moved from the main namespace into my userspace no GFDL violation at all. Jooler (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, they should still be deleted. Deleted pages cannot be left in userspace indefinitely, and this is a textbook case. --Core desat 02:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No see the talk page for Talk:Place names considered unusual - there is an overwhelming desire to restore this page to the format in my userpage but it has been consistently blocked by User:DeiterSimon. My userpage supplies an example of how the page used to look. The other pages are held for similar reasons. Jooler (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is almost certainly a GFDL violation. One Night In Hackney  303  02:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That page is not properly userfied because the page in question has not been deleted per-se it has just been castrated. You'll note that the Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination) highlighted above has an overwhleming vote to KEEP. Jooler (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably because I linked to the wrong AfD - Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names is the first one where the consensus is to delete. One Night In Hackney  303  02:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can give you several hundred links to votes to delete articles that passsed as delete 4 years ago and are now quite prominent articles. The point is the article has survived subsequent deletion votes Jooler (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't survive the second deletion vote, it was closed as G4 - recreation of deleted material. Which in any case is irrelevant to this MfD, userspace is not for circumventing AfD. One Night In Hackney  303  02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How can it be circumventing a deletion when the article hasn't been deleted, or rather it was deleted and then undeleted. Jooler (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In this particular case the article was undeleted through due process - see Deletion review/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd) Jooler (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Page log shows the page was not undeleted as a result of that DRV. One Night In Hackney  303  02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are looking at the wrong place. The restored page has been moved since. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Place%20names%20considered%20unusual Jooler (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The pages are in my userspace for reference. What exactly is the problem with that? Jooler (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't a valid reason to keep deleted articles in userspace; either you improve them or they get deleted again. They haven't been improved, so they should be deleted in line with consensus. As for your previous comment about the debate on that talk page, I don't see an overwhelming desire to restore the content; I see instead no consensus to do anything. --Core desat 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Assumption of bad faith - how? - I simply believe Wikipedia is poorer without such content. Have it away with you if you like but WP:NOT - I see no benefit in such an action. Certainly EBAY find the lists useful (http://listing-index.ebay.com/movies/List_of_films_about_possessed_or_sentient_inanimate_objects.html) - go get them for GFDL violation.  Jooler (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohh BTW you point to a guideline not a rule - which clearly states "This page documents a guideline on the English Wikipedia. While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it. As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense." Jooler (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Fine, have a policy - Wikipedia is not free webhosting. One Night In Hackney  303  20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay go ahead an nominate all user's subpages and bio info and miscellaneous photos and various ramblings from users' pages and subpages. At least this content is encylopaedic, and might get restored. The pages were created by Wikipedians and contain an awful lot of research that should not just be destroyed. I don't understand why you have began this campaign. Jooler (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the remark, I've stricken it. Also, the eBay listing index is just a Wikipedia fork; see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Core desat 08:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's a recreation of deleted pages as an end-run around the deletion process. If you ain't improving them and/or there's no chance you'll overcome the reason for their original deletions, then out they should go. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I expect we will get this content back in WP again. It doesnt need an "overwhelming desire", just enough consensus to pass when it is reused more adequately.DGG (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to The Annex or another similar site. These lists represent a lot of time and effort and they belong somewhere, even if not on Wikipedia. If transwiki isn't a viable option, keep. We should only delete userspace pages of active contributors if they're attack pages, BLP violations, copyright violations, or something else that is completely unacceptable. This doesn't reach that threshold, or even come close. *** Crotalus *** 01:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:USER says different. One Night In Hackney  303  08:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That guideline is not written in stone. I don't think applying it in this case would be wise or helpful. *** Crotalus *** 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not free webhosting is policy though. One Night In Hackney  303  10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * keep per DGG. No copyright violation or any other serious issue. Definite possibility that it will be added back, and Jooler is an editor in good standing. We generally give such editors slighly more leeway about what they can keep in userspace. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. Deleted pages should not be kept in userspace indefinitely. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment which I hope should end this discussion: I have begun (slowly) developing the lists, starting with the one on gory death scenes, adding information and subarrangement, and fixing links. I have also copmment on the place name talk page--this should probably be subdivided and considerably reduced. I urge anyone who can tolerate reading the plots to join in. We do not delete material under actual development. DGG (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, but we delete material which has been sat in userspace for months without a single edit made to it by the user in question, as it's only there to circumvent AfD. One Night In Hackney  303  19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * but here I am developing it now--isnt that what the purpose of XfD is--to encourage development of material? We intent many things we do not get to, and its is unjustified bad faith to say that development was not intended. All this needs is wider participation--why not do one or two entries yourself? DGG (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it's not unjustifed bad faith. Look right above - "The pages are in my userspace for reference. What exactly is the problem with that?" Wikipedia is not free webhosting. One Night In Hackney  303  20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So speaks someone who has no user subpages and no user page at all User:One Night In Hackney. Why not request that people delete pictures of themselves and other clutter. Jooler (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see what that has to do with the price of fish. One Night In Hackney  303  10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW Keep - does my vote count? I don't know why people are such martinets over issues like this. Jooler (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know whether, if I started a userpage called 'list of films about shoes' for reference. Would it be nominated for deletion. How would this be any different from someone creating a subpage with a list of articles they've worked on, or intend to work on, or on subjects thst they are just interested in? Jooler (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep there's no deadline on Wikipedia and at any rate the lists are being worked on now. No good is accomplished by the deletion at this point, it's not as if these pages are spam, or BLP vios.  I might have argued keep even if they're not being worked on.  Who cares if someone wants to keep a list that they find interesting in their userspace?  This should not be a priority for any of us. --JayHenry (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin As you can see from Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive103 deletion of this material on the grounds its an end-run round deletion process and Wikipedia not being free web hosting does no damage. Jooler has offline copies of this material, and has shown no inclination to improve any of the former articles since restoring them to userspace in September. One Night In Hackney  303  09:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Jooler has offline copies of this material" - I'm sorry? Can you see what's on my computer or something!? I do not have off-line copies of this material. I also happen to have been very very busy in recent months as we have a three month old baby! Tell where there is a statute of limitations on such activity? Jooler (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki as per Crotalus horridus. David Pro (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2008 (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.