Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena

 __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:  speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 16:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

WP:COPYARTICLE clearly applies to this userpage: it is a minimally modified copypaste of an article deleted, by overwhelming consensus, at Articles for deletion/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. As was made entirely clear, the article was a fringe POV fork of existing content, and non-policy-compliant in multiple ways. The user responsible for the article, and for this copy-paste of it (which seems to have been shuffled around under different titles for no good reason), appears to still be arguing that the article should not have been deleted, which is not a legitimate reason to maintain a copy of it on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as userpage creator – This page should not get deleted, it's only a userpage. The page shouldn't have been deleted in the first place as it was clearly WP:N notable and did not violate any policy (if so users could have cited a specific phrase with a short explanation why the article fits it as I requested); I'd like to keep it in userspace, for example because if I put it elsewhere the Wikipedia-link hovercards don't work and I can't keep editing it as a resource to use parts of it to expand related articles (using parts of it that use WP:RS which is nearly all or all of it).
 * ____
 * Also I'd like to confirm that I still do think that the article shouldn't be deleted as, despite of considering nearly all Wikipedia deletions to be aligned with policy, [see WP:NPOV which may also relate to majority-opinion] and this wasn't done, points raised weren't really addressed and the article is clearly notable and based on lots of WP:RS.
 * Deletors could not provide even remotely convincing arguments for (complete) deletion, in particular for deletion without merge (of most article content) into UFO or Ufology (I'd be somewhat opposed to a merge as the article is more extensive than what may be due there).  However , my conclusions about the deletion discussion is not really relevant here as this is just a userpage which I'd like to keep working on and find useful (and very many others outside of Wikipedia [see also filter bubble and echo chamber] have confirmed that they find it useful, notable & good quality too).
 * Prototyperspective (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not an appropriate place to argue against deletion of the original article. And no, if your copy-paste is deleted as a result of this discussion, you cannot "put it elsewhere" on Wikipedia. If you want to keep a copy for yourself, your browser will provide the means to do so on your own PC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, if the statement above, that "many others outside of Wikipedia... have confirmed that they find it useful" wasn't complete BS, as the pageview history demonstrates, it would be further grounds for deletion. It isn't a Wikipedia article, and userspace isn't intended to provide content masquerading as articles to outsiders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "masquerading as articles to outsiders". A hatnote could be added such as Template:Userpage notice.
 * If anybody knows of a website where I can put this with the Wikipedia links and hovercards (when hovering over the links) still working, let me know.
 * The full deletion of the original article was unwarranted and violated WP policy such as WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NPOV but, as said, this is not relevant to whether or not to delete this userspace-page. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COPYARTICLE. User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present appears to be a recreation of the article deleted at Articles for deletion/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present and should also be deleted on the same grounds. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Sundostund (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. As mentioned at the AfD, the article has many problems that prevent it from being ready for mainspace, WP:COATRACK being one of them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. As in the MFD immediately above, WP:COPYARTICLE says we should not "indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content". Note the word "indefinitely". I am inclined to give considerable leeway to plausible temporary storage of deleted material which could possibly(?) be used in some form somewhere else in article or draft space. If it just sits there for months, by all means let's delete it. In this case, my Keep vote is very weak since it has been a month since the AFD gave an very unambiguous delete conclusion (much stronger than the one above, which was more about indiscriminate information and other issues which might be addressed through editing), and the author seems more inclined to argue about the merits of the deletion than to find ways how to use the material productively elsewhere on en:wp (if that is at all possible). So I find it quite unlikely this will ever be useful. Nevertheless, on balance I see less harm in giving it another month or two in the likely vain hope this is wrong, than in jumping too quickly. Martinp (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They are posting the userspace link to Reddit today, so it seems they intend to ignore WP:NOTWEBHOST. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A Google search appears find a link to the page posted on other social media too. This is clear and unambiguous misuse of Wikipedia per WP:FAKEARTICLE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I posted it on other social media than reddit. As I said, I find it a useful resource and many others have confirmed that they think so too. One way it's useful is that its contents are relevant to discussions and instead of posting lengthy comments one can simply link to a structured page with more in-depth info (and it's useful as long as it's not deleted even if that's soon). Again, the page shouldn't have been fully deleted and I'm currently looking for a website where I can put it instead with working Wikipedia hovercards as it looks like even the userspace page will get deleted. I don't know why you read that as intending to ignore NOTWEBHOST or why that policy in specific would be relevant, it's not a "Personal web pages" and it's "Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia" only insofar the prior article was deleted. Concerning FAKEARTICLE, again, I would put a Template:Userpage notice at the top. Didn't know about this policy when I moved it from draftspace. The reason why I moved it from draftspace is that these are deleted after 6 months of inactivity which can happen even if I continuously revise and improve it. Other than that, this policy, unlike the policies mentioned (mostly without requested explanations) at the AfD, is clearly relevant to the page and may warrant deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2022 (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.