Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Russavia/Regie

 __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. Thanks to Binksternet for making this possible. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Russavia/Regie


Russavia ain`t coming back any time soon, delete per WP:STALEDRAFT Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as stale. The article should be written by someone else, as the topic is notable enough. The airline Régie Malagache does indeed have an entry in  Encyclopedia of African airlines on page 115, and is discussed throughout the book Le livre d'or de l'aviation Malgache (in French). It was one of three airlines combined to create Air Afrique. Russavia is gone and good riddance, but let's keep expansion of the encyclopedia in mind. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, I would just expand. Current content is, in my view, factual. Gryllida (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is getting to the point of ridiculousness, to the point of being actively harmful to the encyclopedia. And no, I don't mean Russavia's actions. Pages, even in someone's userspace, are not their personal property, and to delete content because someone can't separate their personal desire to 'punish' him from what we are actually here for is pointless. The draft is not stale, and does not come even remotely close to the criteria of WP:STALEDRAFT. Any user other than Russavia could 'adopt' this tomorrow, move it to mainspace, and it would not be a deletable article. The only reason for someone not to do so is a fear of getting caught up in the witchhunt. Revent  talk  10:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This nomination seems to be driven more by a thirst for vengeance by User:Darkness Shines than anything else. It's not the only draft that Darkness Shines has nominated, under spurious reasoning. (Special:Contributions/Darkness_Shines). An editor, whether that is Russavia or not, has already created Régie Malgache and has replaced it some five times, only to have it deleted every time, and I believe it is now semi-protected against recreation. What he said about every article being semi-protected to stop him from improving the encyclopedia seems to be coming true. This is not the only issue that Darkness Shines has, even going so far as calling his improving the encyclopedia vandalism. If editors did their own thing and simply ignored useful editing to the encyclopedia we would all be better off. For the record, I am outside bystander to these discussions and am editing as an IP as I do not wish to be drawn into the witch hunt that Revent mentions above. 212.66.74.242 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing speedy deletion tags is vandalism. What "thirst for vengeance" are you talking about? Russavia is blocked and de facto banned. He is not meant to be editing, and his continuing stream of socks is disruptive. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't this appropriate place to debate this, but I can't let this stand without comment. "WP:VANDALISM is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Speedy deletion tags are not content. Further, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." (my emphasis) It stretches the bounds of credibility to describe adding, or attempting to prevent the removal of, this article as vandalism. Revent  talk  13:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A sock, removing a speedy from an article the sock had created is most certainly disruptive, and in my view vandalism. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to reread WP:VANDALISM before you continue vandalism patrolling, or even the sentence I quoted above. TL;DR version, being merely 'disruptive' is explicitly not vandalism. That was not vandalism, it was you edit warring with a sock, and you should know better. Revent  talk  21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who created an article has no effect on whether it should be deleted. It is appropriate to remove a speedy deletion tag from a quality article granted a discussion is opened on its talk page, and it would be inappropriate to re-add it before such discussion end, were such scenario to happen. Gryllida (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Who created an article has no effect on whether it should be deleted." is not true, see speedy deletion criterion G5. Although this does not seem to apply here, since Russavia was apparently not blocked or banned on November 7, 2009, when this was created, still, G5 exists. IMO a draft which has not been edited for 4 and a half years is definitely stale. Kraxler (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are apparently unaware of the other 'drama' surrounding this topic. The article has recently been created, and deleted, multiple times in mainspace, resubmitted to AfC, accepted at AfC, marked for speedy deletion at AfC, salted, etc. The topic is notable, the draft is well written, multiple established editors are willing to "take responsibility" for it. To phrase this carefully, 'the appearance is being given' that this is all more about people having personal issues with Russavia than about whether or not this article 'belongs', and this nomination, in my opinion at least, is merely part of an attempt to 'purge' all copies of the text. You should note, as linked above, that the nominator is attempting to delete ALL pages in Russavia's userspace, regardless of what they are. "Stale drafts" in userspace that are acceptable as articles should be moved to mainspace. Stale drafts about acceptable topics that are NOT acceptable as articles should be moved to draftspace. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to play, or enable others who play, games.
 * Speedy deletion criteria are to be used with common sense, they are 'shortcuts' to the deletion procedure for use in obvious cases, NOT content policies. If an article topic meets the criteria for inclusion, and the article itself does not violate content policies, then it should not be flagged for speedy deletion. Blocks and bans are NOT punitive, and it is WAY out of line to attempt to abuse the processes to make them so. Revent  talk  20:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have created the article Régie Malagache, using the references and some of the text by Russavia. I added my own summary of the referenced material. Now that the topic is mine and not Russavia's, the stale draft can be deleted. As well, I would like to form a redirect to the new article from the old name Régie Malgache, but that would require its protection removed. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I half expected it, so no surprise, but a very new account showed up at Talk:Régie Malagache to 'claim' the article's wording, to get credit for Russavia, named explicitly. There's no reason to assume that a brand new account would know who was Russavia. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You say 'claim' in scare quotes, and talk about credit, as if this is some game where you score points. It's not. You explicitly said you used part of Russavia's text, he is legally and ethically entitled to attribution. Wikipedia has methods by which that is done, and they explicitly prohibit cut and paste page moves. The remit of this MfD (though it's now rather beside the point) was to decide the fate of this text, and you've attempted to evade the authority of the community by acting unilaterally. Revent  talk  08:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to score points off of this issue, but it's true I was trying to prevent banned editor Russavia from getting credit. I had not seen the WP:RUD guideline until Stefan2 pointed it out at Talk:Régie Malagache—if I had known about that guideline I would have completely rewritten the material rather than use any of Russavia's wording. It would have taken somewhat longer to do so, but not significantly longer. In hindsight, it's clear I would have saved a lot of time and hassle if I had fully rewritten the material.
 * I did not intend to sidestep any decision by the community by creating the article. At the time, my understanding was that the article name Régie Malgache was protected because of persistent Russavia socks, not because of legitimate users. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If the current article is based on this page, then I think that histmerge would be more appropriate, since it allows us to track the history of the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. What should have been is someone userify the article to their userspace and then publish it if they wish. Then we have the article, not in the prior user's space and with the proper attribution. Best of all worlds. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment This is moot now, as the article created by Russavia's socks (blatant ones, such as "SuperRussaviaMan") has been histmerged with the one created by Binksternet. Since an article now exists with this topic and, as the OP noted, Russavia isn't going to be needing this anytime soon, there's no reason to keep it. Revent talk  03:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is personal space. With exception of copyright violations, things should not be deleted there I believe. Gryllida (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Gryllida - Apparently you did not read WP:STALEDRAFT which has been linked above by the nominator for checking. I quote "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages..." I suggest you check out the pertaining guidelines before you discuss anything anywhere anymore. Kraxler (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the current article is based on this one, it should preferably be histmerged with the current article as it is always convenient to have the entire history at one place. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2014 (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.