Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

 __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  Delete. Although the linked ANI report makes claims of vote stacking on the part of opponents of deletion, the discussion clearly favors deletion in both numbers and policy relevance, so there was no need to discount any comments based on those claims. --RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
Userspace draft of article which is essentially a content fork of Murder of Meredith Kercher, which has attracted much attention recently.

Article contains a lot of references to living persons in connection with various crimes in addition to the murder itself. There have been BLP concerns with the original article and they apply here, too.

User is indefinitely blocked and unlikely to finish this article. pablo 11:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the reasons stated by Pablo. Bluewave (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:STALEDRAFT. MER-C 08:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for all of the reasons presented above. WP:STALEDRAFT appears to be quite unambiguous in its rulings with regard to this kind of user page: userspace "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content".  Super Mario  Man  13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, WP:STALEDRAFT. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This person should never have been blocked and was blocked due to unfair review. Wikipedia should unblock PhanuelB.User:JABERRYHILL
 * Note The above editor has not edited since 26 September and their entire Wikipedia career has involved POV-pushing similar to PhanuelB's on this article. Draw your own conclusions.  See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox. SPAs not heard from yet; User:Kermugin, User:Tjholme, User:PietroLegno, User:Perk10, User:NathanWard1234, User:HarvardMan2000, User:Faceforward and User:Charlie wilkes. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, draw your own conclusions. Perk10 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10


 * Delete We can't host this per BLP and other policies, there are plenty of other places on the Internet to host conspiracy theories. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose PhanuelB should not have been blocked in the first place. There is a good reason for a content fork on this article as a second option to revision to the article itself. Perk10 (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
 * Delete per WP:UP. User space is not the place to store one's preferred version of an article. The fact that this also involved WP:BLP means that we should error on the side of caution to prevent the spread of potentially libelous claims. The fact that the editor has been blocked for disruption on this matter is just a sideshow. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Userspace drafts like this should not kick around. I think any closing admin can see the POV-pushing SPAs opposing this for what they are. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:39, 23 December 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.