Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kerberos/Sandbox




 * 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 to delete. There are more deletes but some I'm giving less weight; the argument that the page is 'long enough to be considered for mainspace' doesn't hold water since length is not a major consideration for whether an article should be moved (quality is). Some of the keeps point out that the user is working on the article, and I'm prepared to AGF here. If the user violates NPOV or other policies, that can be dealt with at the time. The keeps also point out the difference in standards between mainspace and userspace. delldot  &nabla;.  01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kerberos/Sandbox
Wikipedia userspace is not a free web host for material previously deleted, see User page ... Kerberos, an WP:SPA who created the Health effects of wind power article previously deleted, see Articles for deletion/Health effects of wind power, has recreated the article in his sandbox and had it sitting there for some time. This article is still focused on Nina Pierpont and Wind turbine syndrome, and those articles' deletion discussions can be found at Articles for deletion/Wind turbine syndrome and Articles for deletion/Nina Pierpont. Wikipedia is not a free web host, so this sandbox content should be deleted, in line with policy and previous deletion discussions. -- Johnfos (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is much the same as the Health effects of wind power article, but longer and with more emphasis on Wind turbine syndrome. The "testimonies" section is troubling, with the diaries, interviews and letters almost all pointing to Wind Watch, an anti-wind website which I think fails Verifiability - rst20xx (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Previous discussions centered on 6 months before deleting any article in userspace as a minimum. This is, however, an acceptable use of a sandbox (heck -- it is one month old). There is no reason think that one month is sufficient to warrant deletion of a userfied article in any case.  See Userfication. Collect (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've never heard of waiting "6 months before deleting any article in userspace". Which WP policy does this come from? Such an approach to deleted material would seem to make a mockery of the whole AfD process. Johnfos (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD refers only to articles in mainspace. Userspace is substantially different.  For example, userspace does not need "notability."  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Seek out the truth/The Kevin Trudeau Show  where another editor also mentions six months. Sufficient unto the day. Collect (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask again, which WP policy document says six months? If there is no policy then we are just dealing with different editor's views. It seems weird to me to have an article repeatedly deleted in mainspace only to have it subsequently kept up in user space for six months. Surely this is WP being a free web host for deleted material, which is against User page... Surely this is making a mockery of the whole AfD process? Johnfos (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I did not say "policy" but specifically referred to discussions within MfD, all that is needed is for me to show you one of those discussions. Which I did.  Look up "userfication" to see more on this, and the fact that a great many articles are, indeed, userfied after an AfD.   As userspace is not mainspace, and does not require notability (as an example) an article deleted for notability in AfD should not be deleted from userspace in MfD for the mere reason that it was deleted at AfD.  Absent a reason for deletion from userspace (claims about the content of the article's focus is not relevant in userspace, any more than notability is), still default to Keep.  Collect (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * John, let me clarify the issue. There is no Wikipedia policy that six months is the maximum amount of time a userspace draft may be left abandoned before deletion, nor is there any consensus at MfD to that effect. Rather, Wikipedia policy is silent on the issue and discussion at MfD has been fairly split on the issue. Although I agree with Collect that this case is a valid userfication, I've strongly disagreed with him in other cases. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is obviously a workspace, article-space and user-space are two very different areas. This page is also active, the user who created it has edited it within the past week and assuming good faith it is my guess this editor is actively improving this workpage not just using it as a host for a deleted article. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep In this MfD, let's set aside the whole "how-long-can-an-abandoned-recreation-in-userspace-be-allowed?" debate, as it's irrelevant. This is not an abandoned page at all. The creator has been working on it, even within the last week. This is an appropriate use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Although I stand by my above statements, I note that Kerberos has essentially admitted that this page is kept in userspace in order to get around WP:NPOV, and that it's a sort of crystal ballery. That said, it's usually a bad idea to delete any user's recently changed sandbox. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Of course the editor has been working on the page. As stated at the outset he is an SPA who is engaged in POV pushing. The page in question is being used to promote his narrow agenda, and it is readily available to the public via search engines, see . WP is being used as a free web host. I wouldn't have thought that this would be a situation to be encouraged, but obviously I am mistaken. Johnfos (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kerberos may well be engaging in POV-pushing to a certain extent, but it's not blatant enough to merit deletion or other action. If this was in the mainspace, that would be another matter. However, Kerberos has the right, as do we, to work on potential articles in our userspace in order to eventually move them to the mainspace. So far as we can tell here, that's what Kerberos is doing. I disagree that we are encouraging POV-pushing or violation of WP:NOT; all we're doing is determining whether or not Kerberos's subpage should be deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I returned this article to Wikipedia via my sandbox is that I have indeed been maintaining it in the anticipation that health effects will in time be recognized by even certain POV editors of Wikipedia as a reality. I decided it would be a lot easier to maintain with Wikipedia's editing interface than as a text file on my hard drive. It obviously doesn't show up in normal searches of Wikipedia. Again, sooner or later this subject will have to be fully treated on Wikipedia, and this article is maintained in anticipation of that. --Kerberos (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2009
 * Kerberos, I think people arguing keep so far are assuming good faith that you are trying to deal with the issues that got the article deleted last time, however you are now stating that this is not the case and that you are expecting what is considered to be POV to change, is this correct? rst20xx (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has already been edited by others to ensure non-POV treatment of the issue. Nonetheless, even as (or because?) attention to the issue grows (e.g., "Govt to study effects of wind farms on health", Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 29, 2009), the editors deleted it. I did restore the external links to testimony from people suffering ill health from nearby wind turbines, because those seem to me to be relevant. When the article is restored, the wisdom of the mob may well remove them again. Because of the prejudice evidenced by many Wikipedia editors against reporting the adverse effects of industrial wind power (if only they were as rigorous about the reporting of its benefits or promoting the companies involved), I thought that restoration of the article should wait until the book by the main researcher of this issue, Nina Pierpont, is out (which it now is: "'Wind Turbine Syndrome' book now available", Nov. 25th, 2009, and has been talked about more in the medical and policy communities. --Kerberos (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just more pushing of anti-wind views, another plug for Ks sandbox, and promotion of Pierpont's self-published book. Johnfos (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Move or delete This page in its current state is long enough to be considered for mainspace. Whether or not it would be kept there should be an AfD decision. Kerberos directly says that POV editors will "in time" recognize these health effects. We do not need to wait for that to happen. This article has been incubated and it now needs to get put to the community. Hosting POV content in userspace that would be deleted in mainspace is not a valid use. Miami33139 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 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.