Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mar4d/India and state terrorism

 __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  Keep - userspace exists in part to give editors a chance to write and rewrite problematic articles; the case that it's being used here to host a version of an article, rather than work on it, isn't demonstrated. Wily D 06:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mar4d/India and state terrorism


Per WP:STALEDRAFT The article was in mainspace and was deleted recently The author copied and pasted the article to userspace in violation of WP:COPYVIO as the article had had a lot of edits on it by other editors, their contributions are no longer in the history of this draft. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - histmerge Undelete and history merge. The AfD closer noted that the subject itself is probably notable, but that the article was too POV currently.  Fixing such an article in userspace is an acceptable use.  The only issue that remains is the copy-paste attribution problem which can be fixed with a history merge.  The merging admin should tag the resulting article with the userspace draft template to keep it out of Google. Gigs (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 17:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is already userfied by another user. How many drafts of the same article are needed? Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no limit on the number of drafts that can be kept on a subject. It will be like limiting the number of editors who can contribute on a certain topic. -- S M S  Talk 16:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This draft is needed as I intend to expand it and create the article. The copyvio problem can be fixed per Gig's suggestion.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I was the main contributor to the article; the others really did nothing other than removing sections. So the claim of copyright should also be looked into.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be simplest just to merge the entire history. Gigs (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Apart from POV and SPS issues, the article on India and state sponsored terrorism had major existential issues. It was pointed out at the AfD that the only well referenced part of the article (on LTTE) was a content fork of half a dozen articles and the whole article was advancing a position that was synthesized from isolated incidents in the references. Besides, a spinout from State-sponsored terrorism isn't justified per WP:SIZESPLIT. Basically, you can't just modify a few things in the older version and create a new article again. So, this subpage serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  03:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fork content, where was that said? The LTTE section was entirely sourced by new references, nothing was lifted out of other articles. I am not sure where you get that perception from. There is no prohibition on having a userspace draft to work on something, so your argument does not hold much water. Per the closing admin's statement, issues with the article structure does not imply that the topic itself is not notable. Where there are a dearth of further references available, there is nothing stopping the expansion of this draft and the recreation of the article.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the AfD, Fork throws up 8 matches and content fork 1 match, so... Besides, it doesn't matter that LTTE is sourced by new references. I am talking about content fork here, not copyvio. You do realize that you have addressed none of the issues I raised. And let me quote what the closing admin said, "There is less of a consensus that this is a non-notable subject". This is not the same as "this is a perfectly notable subject". I have given the subpage a cursory glance and it appears that a lot of concerns raised at the AfD have been completely ignored. Allegations are still flying around, Kalpaz (ref #23) is still being used and the isolated incidents are still being given undue weight. Of course, these issues are only minor, the major issues (which I've already mentioned) can't be addressed at all. Yes there are restrictions on what you can do with your userspace. That is what WP:UPNOT is for. My suggestion is, as it was at AfD, work at the top level article instead of trying to recreate the same article. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  08:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The top level article is an overview summary, it would be inappropriate to expand the India section (or any country's) with this level of detail. But that argument is irrelevant here. We give people a chance to keep drafts in userspace even for apparently non-notable topics, or what might be considered a POV fork.  Template:Userspace notes includes NOINDEX, so this isn't in Google, which means there aren't any pressing concerns in terms of being a "fake article", that may mislead unknowing visitors. Your arguments are arguments that might be relevant at AfD, but this isn't AfD, and none of your arguments have any merit at all. Come back in a year and if the draft is still hanging around unimproved then we could do something. Gigs (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards, a new article is split from a top level article if there are valid reasons for it and then a summary is added. I think my first comment makes it quite clear why I was referring to the AfD. This subpage serves no encyclopedic purpose and is probably being used to skirt consensus. As for coming back in a year, please point to the guideline which suggests that subpages in violation of WP:UPNOT can be safely retained for a year. Regards. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  16:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no violation of UPNOT here. You haven't advanced any rationale for which part of UPNOT this violates, only vague assertions that it does somehow. Gigs (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UPNOT suggests "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (... because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)" are unrelated to the project. And per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Can't make it clearer than this. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  15:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree with . Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   09:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Man, mrt, you have a long sig.. 4 lines in my edit window. Anyway, CorrectKnowledge, that section of UPNOT applies more to something like alien abduction rantings, fantasy American Idol football teams, lists of the editor's collection of GI Joe dolls, and the like.  It's not about deleting a valid attempt at an encyclopedia article just because you have the opposite POV that it has. Gigs (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * alien abduction rantings, fantasy American Idol football teams... Wikipedia discussions do not take place on policies made up in your head. At this point it is safe to suggest that you seem to be suffering from a severe case of WP:IDHT. There was a consensus at the AfD that this article had major existential problems with WP:POV, WP:SPS, WP:SYNTH, WP:SPS, WP:FORK etc. Those problems haven't been addressed at all, on top of those more problematic content (which I've pointed out in previous posts) has been added. This article serves no other purpose than to skirt consensus in two separate AfDs . I can't think of a better reason to delete it. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  04:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of userficiation of deleted content is indeed to "skirt consensus at AfD", at least on a temporary basis.  You may not have noticed, but I'm the creator of the WP:FAKEARTICLE shortcut.  I've been involved with userspace policy development for quite a while now.  I'm not just making stuff up, I helped write these policies in the first place.  You may also note that the closing admin at the AfD even suggested userfication. Gigs (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The userfication was done at Lihaas's request and the article is in their userspace as has been pointed by an editor above. I am sorry, but the fact that you created the shortcut does not add any value to your arguments. In fact, I would have reverted any edit to the policy that suggested that it apply only to alien abduction rantings, fantasy American Idol football teams.... I apologize for being rude earlier. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  14:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep a valid userspace draft of an article written majorly by the user himself. I guess this discussion is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Besides content related policies like SPS, POV does not apply to user space drafts. -- S M S  Talk 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:UPNO. This was a copy of a deleted article, that by the way presented baseless, precarious "allegations" predicated upon conspiracy theories/propagandist claims as facts, serves no purpose except for promoting anti-India propaganda, as well as gratuitously upsetting Indian editors. Furthermore, the polemical userfied draft hasn't even been worked on for almost three weeks now. Now I know, that some Pakistani editors will perhaps be more susceptible to Pakistani propaganda than others. Hence is it too much of a stretch to think that there is an anti-Indian duplicitous agenda at work here? Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   13:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Mar4d took this to the main space before and by keeping it he openly suggests that he is planning to improve on the last version (probably address issues and improve content etc) to later move it to the main space again. This is perfectly good use of userspace. If a user thinks that the current version is not neutral, he should object when it is moved to the mainspace... or leave a note at Mar4d's talkpage indicating the issues. These policies do not apply to his user space version which he is not even done editing. This nomination plainly suggests either WP:IDONTLIKEIT or deliberate harassment of Mar4d. To address the copy vio issues... all Mar4d needs to do is ask an administrator to provide the list of users who edited the deleted article from which the content was copied and place them in null edits' editsummaries. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh really? That's why he hasn't edited the content of that article in over three weeks (except for adding miscellaneous links on sep 4th)? Your excuses are funny. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   17:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is no deadline to edit wikipedia and ofcourse no one has to go by your timetable unless you are paying them. And as you say.. he did add links there and the previous improvements suggest this can be improved further... unless ofcourse you don't want it to get to mainspace to start with because you don't like the topic. Let's not get in to a useless debate, I don't think either of our further comments added anything on anyside... you can laugh all you want if you find my comments funny :) -- lTopGunl (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't come here just to vote, refute some of the claims that have been made about this content being unencyclopedic, WP:FAKEARTICLE etc. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  04:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't "vote"... I've given a full explanation of why this should be kept... including a refutation, esp of the 'fakearticle' claim. I trust the closer will be wise enough to get that from my comment alone. -- lTopGunl (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "he openly suggests that he is planning to improve on the last version (probably address issues and improve content etc) to later move it to the main space again. This is perfectly good use of userspace." - It would have been a good reason, if it were before the article received a consensus to delete it. You say "I didn't "vote" " but you didn't do any thing more than that either. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   06:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered why none of the changes suggested in the AfD were made, why the article continues to ignore consensus (on existential issues with the article) and why after two AfDs and repeated suggestions to work on top level article do you (or Mar4d in this case) feel the need to keep an older version of the article intact. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  11:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, have you taken a step back on this and considered that some obscure draft in some guy's userspace that no one will ever see isn't really a big deal? That's the reason we give people so much latitude in user space, assuming they continue to use templates that keep the drafts out of Google.  Gigs (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (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.