Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PvOberstein

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

User:PvOberstein


This is a promotional userpage along with a fake article Marvellous Spider-Man  17:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Marvellous Spider-Man 'k I'm genuinely confused here. My user page contains contact information (explicitly allowed under User pages) and "Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future". Also, in all seriousness, wtf is a "fake news article"? Could you please be specific? Also, what the rationale is (User_pages)?


 * Keep - the draft article has been moved to a sandbox and the contact information left is not promotional. ~ GB fan 18:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not a social networking site. A little contact info is fine but listing every social networking way of connecting suggests the user is more interested in social networking and connections off wikipedia then on working on the project. See WP:UP and WP:NOTFACEBOOK and WP:NOTDIR. Posting such personal info is also a bad idea for the individual as it could be used for harrassment off wiki for your on wiki activities. If I were this user I'd request the page be deleted so no one can access it via history then recreate a userpage that lists my editing interests and no more. However the user insists on my talk he wants to keep it so changing my vote to keep. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well within reasonable leeway for a productive Wikipedian.  However, the content forking of Sabzar Bhat, apparently done as a backup anticipating deletion (unlikely) per Articles for deletion/Sabzar Bhat, is not OK per WP:UP.  You may of course backup off-site, just not on-site.  See FAQ/Forking.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe could I get some clarification, because I'm getting some mixed message. I asked a question on the help desk here and the advice I received explicitly said "I suggest you move the draft, maybe to User:PvOberstein/Sabzar Ahmad Bhat.". The content might be deleted, but if it does not meet notability guidelines, I wanted it to be easily accessible if I could find a better way of re-incorporating it elsewhere on Wikipedia. Who's wrong? PvOberstein (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you were given good advice at the help desk. I actually think User:Maproom gave bad advice.  If you think the material could be re-incorporated elsewhere on Wikipeda (i.e. merged to another article), you should raise that possibility at Articles for deletion/Sabzar Bhat.  If already deleted, and you find a possible place to incorporate it, you should ask for a WP:REFUND to get it undeleted, and should not used a forked copy.  Forking, or copy-pasting content like you have done creates serious attribution hazards.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When I gave that advice, I was unaware that Wikipedia already had an article Sabzar Bhat (which I now see was also created by User:PvOberstein). I assumed that the material I recommended moving was work-in-progress. I always advise against creating or maintaining rival versions of the same article or draft, as I have often seen it cause confusion – and, yes, there are attribution hazards too. I agree with, the fork of Sabzar Bhat should be deleted. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that User:PvOberstein/Sabzar Ahmad Bhat still exists, and is a copyright violation of Sabzar Bhat. I believe that it ought to be deleted, or its contents redacted. Maproom (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing (except, perhaps the nomination) that violates policy, either in spirit or letter. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you blocked Joefromrandb recently for incivility. Though everybody has voted "keep", nobody has criticized the nomination. Now he says that the nomination violates policy in spirit. Marvellous Spider-Man  14:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know he was uncivil recently, but this statement isn't uncivil - we need to AGF until we have reason not to. If he believes that it does, then he's okay to say so (he should show the policy if asked) - Joefromrandb, what policy do you believe the nomination violates?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the user page. Redact the 14,490-byte section which was deleted on June 5th, as a copyvio; also User:PvOberstein/Sabzar Ahmad Bhat. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ .  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I jumped the gun too quickly here; I undid the redaction until I can inquire further first. Maproom, what part of these edits are copyright violations exactly? Can you point this out specifically for me please?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:PvOberstein/Sabzar Ahmad Bhat, and the material deleted from the User Page with this edit, are copies of Sabzar Bhat, containing content (including the words "petty crime prior") added to it by Bhat Rumysa, without due attribution. (I don't suppose anyone cares. But I believe policy requires the deletion of such material. I also understand that has acted throughout reasonably, politely, and in good faith, and may regard the deletion/redaction as pointless pedantry.) Maproom (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. So when does this get resolved? It's been well over a week and I'd rather like to get that banner off my page. I'm really not familiar with the procedure here, does User:Marvellous_Spider-Man have to do something, one way or another? PvOberstein (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2017 (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.