Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity)




 * 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. @harej 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity)
This page was created because of Articles_for_deletion/Ra_(channeled_entity)_(2nd_nomination). It should be deleted under the guide of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This debate is far more baseless than Articles_for_deletion/Ra_(channeled_entity)_(2nd_nomination). I am glad anyway; because these are just proofs that, gaming the system is at work. Apart from Articles_for_deletion/Ra_(channeled_entity)_(2nd_nomination)'s being an inappropriate place for publicising this debate (Publicising_discussions), it has again no ground according to WP:NOTWEBHOST because the page in concern does not fit any one of the 4 descriptions listed. In fact, as I mentioned in Articles_for_deletion/Ra_(channeled_entity)_(2nd_nomination), User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity) has right to exist according to the statement in Articles_for_deletion: "The page is then either kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Logos5557 (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per User_page: "[User] space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content". Furthermore, it's clear that, if it isn't deleted attempts to shove the whole thing back in somehow will be ongoing. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 00:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wrong reasoning; the page in concern is not a copy of any page in main space. L/L_Research was created & edited heavily by dab, I guess in order to eliminate the possibility of bringing it back in some other name. Even the creator were me, it is not forbidden to attempt to bring parts (or whole) of the material qualified to exist in wikipedia. Someone can not be arrested before he/she does anything wrong. Logos5557 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment For documentation purposes here are the related diffs;, , , . I guess it is clear now that it was not me. Logos5557 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: per Shoemaker's Holiday [or salt per Dbachmann if necessary to comply with policy]. Logos5557's rebuttal is unavailing, as this page is simply a 'move' of the page currently on WP:SNOW deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * SALT. Please note that I have copy-pasted a paragraph of this article into L/L Research. For licencing reasons, the edit history of the article should remain accessible. Please keep these things in mind in deletion discussions. The proper course of action in this case would be, imo: move the page back to Ra (channeled entity), then R to section to L/L Research, and protect the redirect against recreation. Logos5557 has a terrible case of wikilawyering, and is by now at the stage of giving me "last warnings" and similar. It is time to conclude this pathetic business also for user's own good, I do not assume there is still anything in here that can in any way be argued to be connected with building an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that L/L Research is also on AfD now. Of course, if it is deleted, we can also delete this page with no licencing problems. But I would like to keep a record of this around somewhere, not because I think it is terribly notable, but because I have invested time in figuring out this case, and I would not want to repeat the exercise next time it comes up (as it is bound to, as the books clearly have a small but dedicated following in the blogosphere). --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The SNOW delete at AfD is because the user blanked the page and copied the text over here - Dab is right, it should really be put back there to meet its fate first, then userfied, then one could discuss deletion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)ETA - in case of doubt, I am in no way in support of seeing this in userspace (or anywhere else for that matter) Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: you are incorrect, all but one of the 'delete's on that AfD occured before the move & blank. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SALTDbachmann is entirely correct. The page was only moved over here in order to prevent the conclusion of the deletion discussion at the original location.  Let's conclude this issue properly.Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Shoemaker's Holiday. This appears to be an attempt to subvert wikipedia's AfD process, and this page should be deleted. When the AfD closes, the user can request userfication in the usual way. However, as there are still no RS for this the resulting redirect might require protection to disuade editors from simply recreating this article. For the same reason I'd be against userfication until multiple RS are presented. Verbal chat  13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Shoemaker's Holiday and Verbal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This page is a transparent attempt to get around the predictable AfD result, and it serves no legitimate purpose. If the history is needed for licence reasons, it will have to be moved back, turned into a redirect and salted. Hans Adler 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The move to userspace is for avoiding the deletion at AfD. If there are no reliable sources at all then userfying is not useful for the encyclopedia. This will never become an article. As Hans says, if there are GFDL concerns because of merged content, then it can be undeleted, moved back to its original place and turned into a redirect to L/L Research (which is also under AfD, by the way) or to the relevant article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Verbal. Salt as well.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Exactly as per nomination.  I am not sure, however, that salting per se would do much good, as it could be circumvented by a simple title change.  The editor should simply be instructed not to recreate the page. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has been up at mainspace for ~9 months without any independent reliable sources being found. Once the mainspace article was nominated for deletion, instead of searching for sources to establish notability, it was simply moved to userspace. As such there seems to be no attempt at, or prospect of, rewriting the article based on quality sources and hence the article needs to be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Abecedare (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DeletePer nomination. Unless reliable sources can be shown, delete and tell editor not to recreate.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep . Neutral. None of the deletion comments provides a substantive rationale to ignore our normal and well-established principles and processes. Since when is userfication deprecated? The deletion debate just closed. Given the absence of copyvio or similarly prohibitive concerns, I would userify this article upon request as an administrator per the standard and longstanding practice. If the page just sits there for three to six months, then raise it for deletion. However, it seems a bit outside our standard good practice to delete the userified page immediately after the AfD. I don't think it's very likely that the article draft will be sufficiently sourced or improved, but that does not mean that I would not allow the editor the opportunity to prove me wrong. In addition to my dismay with the pat rejection of normal userification, I am also floored by the astounding dearth of good faith demonstrated here. I implore the closer of this discussion to hold to the fundamental principle that deletion discussions should not be closed by raw numbers, but rather by the project's principles, policies, and standard good practices, without a strongly compelling reason to contrary. --Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a previous AfD in which the notability problems were already an important concern. Logos5553 has had about 9 months to find reliable sources and to bring the article into a state in which it had a chance to survive an AfD with something better than no consensus misread by a confused admin as keep. Instead, with a lot of effort Logos5553 brought the article into such a problematic state that it didn't even get the usual optimistic keep !votes by editors who generally trust that there are usable sources out there somewhere and sooner or later someone will find them. Normally that's what editors unhappy with a deletion do after userfication. I don't think it's in anybody's interest to encourage Logos5553 to invest even more time into a topic that simply lacks mainstream coverage. Hans Adler 22:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone has never seen a valid WP:IAR justification that this is a wonderful example of how IAR should be justified (down to the lack of citing IAR). Though you have not convinced me to change my view to support deletion explicitly, you have provided a coherent, complete and well-expressed argument. --Vassyana (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Delete  page as well.  — Athaenara  ✉  18:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Because he copied you?  That isn't a reason to delete a userpage.  WP:GETOVERIT.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the content (see User page). The format Logos5557 copied is Wikipedia's, not mine.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of User page does apply here exactly? "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere". Logos5557 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph of that section: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." — Athaenara  ✉  20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but that content is some sort of socratic dialogues and serves the purpose of implicitly describing me as a wikipedian, my beliefs, my POV and the type of articles I would tend to work on. Links to some wikipedia articles & headings can be removed. Logos5557 (talk) 09:45, 4 September 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.