Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett

 __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 the page as a useful draft on a notable subject. However, material that infringes copyrights is not something that can be kept based on an MFD; legal policy overrides any local consensus. Therefore, I will be removing the infringing material that is currently commented out and revision deleting all previous versions. A contributor list will be placed on the talk page to account for any remaining text. --RL0919 (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Nevermind that last bit; I forgot that revision deletion allows removal of the text while retaining the contribution list. --RL0919 (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett
Userspace should not be used to indefinitely host private copies of pages for long-term archival purposes per WP:STALEDRAFT (last edit to User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett: 19 October 2010). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: obviously an article he wants to create, not a private copy of a page. Curtis-Bennet is a notable character, it would be nice to have an article on him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move back to mainspace from whence it came. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question The majority of text in the page was "closely paraphrased enough" from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography "to constitute a copyright infringement" (see Copyright problems/2010 January 12), leading to the deletion of the mainspace article. Though the offending text has been commented out, is there still a copyright problem in hosting it in userspace? --79.68.237.87 (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If the copyrighted content is no longer in the article, regardless of where it is, then there is no longer any copyright infringement. Silver  seren C 15:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Copyvios in the history are still a copyvio; blanking is a temporary measure. WP:REVDEL can be used to selectively hide revisions, however the entire history of this article would need to be hidden, so what is the point; just delete it and someone can then create it as a new article. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, essentially you're saying delete this subpage and then recreate it, just without the old history? I suppose that's fine, though that doesn't have any bearing on this discussion really. An admin can go do it right now and we wouldn't know (and it wouldn't matter). I didn't know that we routinely REVDELeted copyvios though. I thought we just blanked them and rewrote them. Silver  seren C 08:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't what I am saying. This copyvio should never have been pushed into userspace; ergo, it should be deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was userfied so that it could be fixed, that's normal procedure if a user asks for it. Silver  seren C 09:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not normal procedure to userify a copyvio if a user asks for it. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyvios are also still in the article. Commenting them out doesn't remove them. We had complaints from ODNB authors about Craigy; I don't think we should be taking chances with keeping his problematic content around. Creating a new article on the subject is dandy, but Craigy's text should be removed from the article and from its history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That can be fixed by deleting the commented-out material and keeping it offline; I was going to use it as a signpost for rewriting the article. Rodhull  andemu  18:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyvio is not something you should be keeping around; unless you have purchased rights to access it (online or hardcopy), you should go to a library to access it. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the alternative is to print out the original article, which is fair dealing within section 29 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 which applies where I am, and destroy it once the article has been rewritten. Rodhull  andemu  20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment MfD is not a resource for kicking editors when they are down - one wonders if such a debate would be happening if Rh&e were still an admin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, per Nyb's comments below, with apologies to the nominator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In fairness to the nominator, he appears to nominate pages for deletion regularly; I don't think we have any basis for speculating that he knows anything about the matter you're referring to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I moved this to my userspace because it was largely a copyvio and, gutted of content, it would have been useless as an article. I have books about, and which refer to, Curtis-Bennett, and intended to fix it from them when I had time. Other issues prevailed, and I haven't had that time, and now it looks as if I'm not going to. If someone else wants to work on it, fine. Meanwhile out of 330 entries on my watchlist, at least 30 of them are vandalism or contrary to policy in other ways. Volunteers?  Rodhull  andemu  18:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to take a moment to add those books as external links (to become references) so that people can see what sources you are intending to use? If you have to time to format them too, I think that would be helpful. Silver  seren C 18:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some time. Not right now. Too tired. Rodhull  andemu  18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave for the user to manage in his own good time. There are no time limits.  If the concern was "stale" this definitely should have been preceded by a friendly question on the users talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no harm in allowing a bit more time for this, and no urgent need to finish it - but if anything needs to be done, move back to article space rather than deleting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment But certainly not in its present state; it's a shell article needing some TLC, but I am in two minds as to whether I am willing to provide that myself right now. Rodhull  andemu  00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. In that case I'd say keep it for a while longer - there's no need to pressure you over it right now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He was said to be one of the three most notable people in his trade at the time of his death. With the coverage he gets, I say go ahead and move this back into mainspace.  Add a couple of references, and its done.   D r e a m Focus  01:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It will need the copyvios stripping out of the history in that case, or else some poor soul is bound to restore them in ignorance. It would be easy enough to do though
 * 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.