Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Reddi/Dynamic Theory of Gravity


 * 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 debate was Delete. Anthøny 21:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Reddi/Dynamic Theory of Gravity
User:Reddi who has been the subject of two different arbitrations has created a walled-off collection of encyclopedia articles that he is editing in his user space in violation of disallowed uses one and three. Many of these articles here were deleted in the past through AfD and others seem to be simply places for Reddi to hang his coat in support of his POV-pushing of fringe theories related to Tesla, perpetual motion machines, and pseudoscience, for example. ScienceApologist 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the other articles in question:




 * Delete all Haven't been touched since late May. Adam Cuerden talk 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that two of the pages are redirects to Trouton–Noble experiment and Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy, the later of which is already subject to an AFD. WegianWarrior 04:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: Reddi's last edit was on 9 September. I do think it would be somewhat unfair to delete content in his user space in his absence. It will be enough to blank the pages for now, or alternatively slap userpage on them. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - while not opposed to deletion, I'm also not opposed to Reddi's recreation of the material to work on making real articles out of his fringe theory material. Does anyone know anything about the user?  and if he's coming back or not?  --Rocksanddirt 16:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blank or userpage per dab. Being inactive for less than two months is no reason for deletion. --victor falk 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Redirect to User:Reddi Delete all Article was redirected as a result of an AfD due to WP:OR. Page seems to be kept in violation of archiving old articles on a userpage.  I would not delete this page out of respect for the user.  He seemed to be a good editor and could choose to return.  If I were him and found my subpages deleted that might be the last straw; if they were redicted with a note on my talk page I would be less inclined to feel slighted. I just looked at his block log, he does not seem likely to be reasonable on these topics.  Therefore, assuming good faith to allow construction of a quality article seems to be a stretch.--12 Noon 18:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While there should be a fair degree of latitude for editors to keep deleted material on user subpages for the purposes of working it into an acceptable article, this seems to have been taken a little too far here. Of the 7 articles listed, Testatika, Dynamic theory of gravity and Permanent magnet motor were all deleted or redirected per their AfD discussions (linked), and Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature is at an AfD right now. The other three seem to be, as 12 Noon says, attempts to keep favoured versions of disputed content. So, I would suggest delete, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason for keeping them. &mdash; BillC talk 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reddi's done somewhat substantial work with some of these articles, like this. Some of these articles were questionably deleted and may be fine articles with a bit of work. If Reddi returns from his absence, some of them might be appropriately recreated by him; if not, possibly by someone else. In any case, they're not doing any harm in his user space. — xDanielx T/C 04:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether articles were questionably deleted or not is simply irrelevant to this discussion. If you are of such an opinion, there is deletion review. As it is, keeping deleted content in your userspace is a tactic which has been considered grounds for deletion in plenty of other MfD cases. I maintain that these articles are doing harm since he is effectively creating a walled-off encyclopedia in his userspace of content that for a variety of reasons has been excised from other locations in the mainspace. These aren't sandboxes, they're soapboxes. ScienceApologist 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a moot court. If an article was questionably deleted, then it makes sense to be more lenient with userfied preservations of the content, as it is likely that the article may have the merits for recreation. I don't see how the articles work as a soapbox, at least not prior to your decision to criticize Reddi's preservation of them. — xDanielx T/C 19:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the arbitrations Reddi and Reddi 2 which Reddi was the subject. He has an axe to grind and it is illustrated by the attempts he makes to make sure the original research content he has historically included is preserved despite community consensus that it be removed. ScienceApologist 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, those were quite some time ago. Certainly relevant, and worth noting... but all the same, I don't see how these userfictions are doing anyone any harm. — xDanielx T/C 02:14, 29 October 2007 (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.