Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Bertrand Russell on Common Sense




 * 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. harej 04:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Neptunerover/Bertrand Russell on Common Sense
This page appears to consist almost entirely of unacceptable and unmitigated copyright violations. The vast, vast majority of text on the page is direct and extended quotation from the works of Bertrand Russel, and would thus appear to directly violate Non-free content. The fact that the user intends this to one day move into article-space makes no difference, and I don't imagine it would have a place in the article which is suggested as its potential home (WP:UNDUE). ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  ballotbox  ─╢ 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - They seem reasonable quotes (well below fair use length I'd say) and the page has (at least apparently) an explicit encyclopedia-building purpose. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Inserting hundreds of words of direct quotation from one philosopher into a general article is unlikely to be appropriate. I also suggest that the extracts are excessively long! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  inspectorate  ─╢ 14:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * UNDUE concerns I share, but they are to be discussed if and when the user will try to insert such quotes in the abovementioned article -and in the article talk page. It has nothing to do with MfD. You "suggest" that the extracts are excessively long: prove it. We have lots of quotes of similar size all around WP, I'd say they're well within fair use. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Does not even reach any fair use issues.  Clearly aimed at being useful to the project.  And subsections of articles which deal specifically with one author tend, for some odd reason, to mainly have quotes from that author .  Since the subsection specifies Bertrand Russell, if the quotes were from aristotle, I would be substantially surprised.  Collect (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons given above. It is perfectly reasonable to keep some long quotes and to work out later how to use them appropriately in an article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, Bduke points out the very reason why I have anything "extensive" from outside writings on the page in question--so I don't have to keep looking it up in the books. I don't even have to keep the books on hand. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone thinks TreasuryTag may be overly concerned with a particular user, I point out another recent MFD. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, This is not a completely random attack on Neptunerover. This file was part of a set of files, some of which were undeniably complete nonsense and have already been deleted through the MfD process. APL (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I agree with APL in that this attack certainly seems more targeted than random. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification, I meant that this MfD listing is not without a logical justification. User:TreasuryTag probably listed this out of a sense of completeness not out of any attack on User:Neptunerover, targeted, random, or otherwise. APL (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Granted, yet TreasuryTag's possible 'sense of completeness' might be misplaced, as no one here (so far) seems to agree with the issue he brought up. I'm not saying it's a 'witch hunt', for the pursuers of witches must have believed full well in the appropriateness of chasing witches, and therefore they chased a noble cause. I'm sorry, but I don't see a noble cause here (so it can't be a witch hunt). --Neptunerover (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you guys really need to preface every single message with "comment" in bold letters? The people reading this MfD are not idiots, we know when a comment is a comment. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 05:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey, I read this thing, and who says I'm not an idiot? --Neptunerover (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody. Nobody has ever said that. APL (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never said it either. That's an argument I don't want to get into. --Neptunerover (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a perfectly legitimate user space draft. Of course it can't be taken to article space in its current form, but that's why it's a draft. This is a perfectly valid use of user space and we should not discourage Neptunerover from using that space for such purposes. - Spaceman  Spiff  03:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appropriate use of userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I too have several pages in my userspace that, thinking practically, probably will never actually become articles. But it's nice to at least have them sitting on the back burner, and no one has ever complained to me about them. Look, we all know Neptunerover has made some poor editing choices and inappropriate userpages in the past, but that doesn't mean we need to gang up on him now. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:49, 21 January 2010 (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.