Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo




 * 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 and move to project space. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo
This user subpage is apparently intended to permanently host a copy of an article that has been deleted multiple times via AfD as non-notable (see Talk:Wikinfo for the links). Such a use of subpages to circumvent deletion decisions is not allowed per Subpages (no. 3) and may indeed qualify for speedy deletion per WP:CSD ("Material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is not excluded [from CSD]").  Sandstein  19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy keep it was kept from the AfD (6th nom) because it's a relevant project page. Such pages are completely appropriate in the Wikipedia: namespace. Several editors supporting deletion supported my suggestion to move it out of article space and preserve it in the project space. At no point does this circumvent the deletion decision, not by a long shot. -- Ned Scott 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff of the closing admin from the AfD userfying the page himself. Also, it is incorrect to say that this page has been deleted multiple times via AfD. AfDs 1-5 were keep (4 keeps, one no consensus). The 6th one resulted in the userfication in my userspace. The 7th one was apparently a recreation. -- Ned Scott 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, no, that's not a "keep" decision. Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination) resulted in simple deletion and not in a consensus for userfication. Any later userfication may not be used to circumvent deletion, and the article shows no sign of improvement since userfication. Also, it's now not in project space, it's in user space, and looks like an article, not a project page.  Sandstein   19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a keep decision. The closing admin choose to move it out of article space and delete the redirect. He did this himself. Are you saying he is opposing his own conclusion? Are you saying the "deleting" admin is circumventing deletion? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? The deleting admin did not userfy it so it could be improved upon for article space. It was never meant to go back to article space. Is this any different than Semapedia? how-can-I-best-spell-this-out-for-you? -- Ned Scott 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete See update below. This is clearly a copy of the article itself, not a "project" page. This is stated outright by Ned himself in this comment. Userfication is acceptable if the user is going to update the article to address the issues raised at AfD, but that's clearly not the case here because there have been only two pre-MfD edits since userfication, and none since June 2008. If this is supposed to be a project-space page, then it should be moved to Wikinfo (currently a redirect to a WP:FORK subpage), although I suspect it would just come back to MfD from there, because it is clearly written to be an encyclopedia article. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Semapedia is an exact copy of how it was when it was in article space. Do you think that page should be deleted as well? I meant to clean up the page and move it to project space eventually, but other things were a higher priority, and there never was any rush. Given that this is a direct action from the closing admin of the AfD, and that the content itself is completely appropriate in the project namespace, what reason do you have for wanting this to be deleted? -- Ned Scott 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Semapedia, unlike Wikinfo, was never deleted through AfD, just moved to project space (not user space). Also unlike Wikinfo, Semapedia appears to be mildly notable and could well become an article.  Sandstein   20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason it wasn't brought to AfD was because I moved it before it could be. Semapedia isn't notable at all. The project is practically dead (but I still like the idea. Never could get it to work on my phone, though). If you look at the AfD, Semapedia is my example when I made the argument that it should be preserved in project space. -- Ned Scott 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the Sampedia page belongs in project space either. But this is a standard WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of argument. It doesn't matter whether some other content is appropriate for some other namespace. What matters is that the content of this article does not belong in user space if it is not being actively improved for return to the mainspace, regardless of who moved it there. Other priorities might justify a delay of a few weeks or even a few months, but no changes in well over a year strongly suggests that the page is being kept as an out-of-policy copy of the deleted article. --RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It being in user space or Wikipedia space makes little difference. It's a minor technicality, and process wonkery at best. I'm a long time Wikipedian in good standing, and I know the rules. I've gone to bat in mfd for user drafts that are far older than this, by the way. However, this is not a draft. I am free to host a project page in my userspace if I wish. What reason, if any, should this be deleted? If this never existed in the article namespace would you still be supporting deletion? Is the content, on its own, inappropriate based on our guidelines and policies? -- Ned Scott 20:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, hosting a project page in user space is not appropriate, per Subpages, which disallows "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." As to the appropriateness of the content for project space, I think that is debatable. Other than WP:Semapedia, which is in project space because you put it there, I don't know of any precedent for a project page dedicated to describing a single non-Wikimedia project. (There is the lengthy list at WP:FORK, which already includes Wikinfo. That list is justified for purposes of helping to monitor compliance with WP licensing.) I don't know of any guideline against such pages, but I don't know of any justification for having them either. I also find it a little strange that the Semapedia project page and this user page both seem to have been created only when the mainspace articles were deleted or in danger of deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hosting a "project" page in userspace is like hosting an essay in userspace rather than Wikipedia: namespace. The content has been re-purposed and no longer is meant for the encyclopedia itself. Subpages doesn't apply. If it did then it would apply to things like Wikipetan (which also started life in article space).


 * As for why both were "created" when in danger of deletion, that has more to do with no one noticing the issue until then. Actually, Semapedia wasn't in danger of deletion at the time, and I was simply cleaning up something that didn't meet our inclusion policy. These pages are useful to editors as tools and examples, but they're not appropriate for readers. That's the difference here. It's okay to retain things that are useful and relevant to editors and the editing/reusing process. -- Ned Scott 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Subpages doesn't apply to Wikipetan because that isn't a user subpage. If that page went to MfD, closed as delete, and then was userfied, I would have the same objection if it just sat there unedited. This simply shouldn't sit indefinitely in user space as if user space were somehow an appropriate substitute for project space. However, as I said, the appropriateness of material about Wikinfo as a project-space page is debatable, so please see below regarding what I think should be done with it.


 * Delete per RL0919, has no chance of becoming an article, hasn't been edited in over a year, clear circumvention of deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the deleting admin userfied it himself. There was clear support for userfication in the AfD. How can any reasonable person find this to be a circumvention of deletion? -- Ned Scott 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the clear support. Even so, what do we benefit from keeping this around? It hasn't been touched since userfication and never will be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) The outcome of the AfD was "delete". If the deleting admin later userfied it on your request, it was presumably to give you a chance to improve it, not to keep it in userspace indefinitely as seems to be your intention. Doing so is a circumvention of deletion. And the strings "userf*" or "user space" do not appear once in Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination), so I do not see why you believe that "there was clear support for userfication in the AfD".  Sandstein   20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Sandstein said. Userspace is not meant to hold articles indefinitely. I swear, MFD has more radicals inclusionists than any other XFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "it was presumably to give you a chance to improve it" dig deeper. His concern was that the page might make it look like there was an official/formal connection between Wikipedia and Wikinfo . That was the only reason it was left in userspace. I kept meaning to update it so that it could be moved into the Wikipedia namespace without confusion, but figured there was no rush. I haven't touched a lot of projects in a long time, but I'm far from abandoning them. -- Ned Scott 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TPH: you ask what benefit do we get from keeping this. I'm surprised you don't see the value in keeping a record of significant reuses of Wikpiedia content, especially one by a respected user such as Fred Bauder. One of our major goals here on Wikipedia is to encourage and show off these kinds of content re-use. -- Ned Scott 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My main concern is indefinitely holding articles-to-be in userspace. Or in this case, articles-that-never-will-be. I'm fine with sandboxen for a short time, but there has to be a limit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with you there, but you don't seem to understand that this isn't in userspace so it can become an article again. It is in userspace so it could be touched up to prevent confusion regarding any official/formal relationship between Wikinfo and Wikipedia. I'm working on it now to see to that (as well as trim it down to just the more relevant parts). Is there anything specific you would like to see done to the page to help distance itself form being article-like as well? -- Ned Scott 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know. Seeing you actually edit it would be a start. I don't think you should bother to hold something in userspace forever if you're never gonna touch it. If you can't think of anything to improve what you've got here, then hmm… maybe it SHOULDN'T BE AN ARTICLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am editing it, right now. I was asking if you had anything specific in mind you wanted to see changed. There is no reason to be rude. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I can't think of anything right now, sorry for being rude. But I wouldn't object to it being project-ified. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to project space at WP:Wikinfo. Since the claim is that it is intended to be a project page, then that is where it should be. I say this without intending to endorse the page as proper content for project space. I think there should be wider community discussion (not just at MfD) about whether project space should contain pages dedicated to describing non-Wikimedia projects that use Wikipedia content, such as this page and the WP:Semapedia page. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on that question myself. I do have a strong opinion that this shouldn't stay in user space. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to project space. I see no valid reasons for it to be deleted, but I agree it shouldn't be in userspace indefinitely. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. To get a broader discussion going on the general topic of such pages, I've posted about it at Village pump (policy). --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: The consensus of the Village Pump discussion appears to be in favor of moving this type of material to subpages of WP:WikiProject Transwiki‎. --RL0919 (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move to project space. WP:NOTPAPER and the above hostility is astounding. -moritheil Talk 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've made a suggestion at Village pump (policy), namely that these pages might be best hosted as subpages of an appropriate WikiProject. Permanently hosting this in userspace is not ideal. Rd232 talk 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - contains useful information related to development of the encyclopedia. Might be more useful in Wikipedia space if a collection of similar entries is produced, but keeping it in userspace is fine as well; its relevance to our work here is direct and obvious. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with User:RL0919. Ned's great contributions have slowed down substantially, and I find it unlikely that this page will ever get moved out of user-space.  Bringing up Semapedia is a straw-man, and a bit disappointing. Jsorg71 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 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.