Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Seddon/SandboxNWT


 * 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  keep . east718 //  talk  //  email  // 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Seddon/SandboxNWT
This page is a copy of an article, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. The page has not been modified in several months. User page guidelines state:"While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." -- Jeffro 77  (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Your quoting of policy is correct but for future reference I think that this MfD is probably unnecessary. The real purpose of the page was for use during a case I was mediating with the Mediation cabal. A topic which is a contentious area and the possibility of another dispute arising is likely given its nature. In this case and for other pages in my userspace I may have forgotten about, and also other non-contentious user pages, it is probably easier just coming to ask me (or the specific user) directly about the page rather than going through the hassle of MfD. In this case I have no opinion on whether this page is deleted or not, as I suppose I could just ask for it to be restored if needs be. Its just more hassle in the end. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 19:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a text file on your own computer or alternative web-host would be a more appropriate location for keeping different versions of articles long-term.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that an unreasonable request to make. The retention of this content in the mediator's user space is, here, very understandable; if I may speak candidly, there are better things we could all be devote our time to. Anthøny   ✉  15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Has a purpose and does not violate the spirit of the userspace rules.  MBisanz  talk 04:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst the nominator's rationale is understandable, in this case I view this page as an exception to the standard restrictions on retaining deleted content in one's userspace: with a little foresight, it is not unreasonable to say that the waiving of the sections of the user page guidelines pertaining to such deleted content is for the "wider good"—the resolving of a content dispute is clearly the higher priority. Guidelines reflect our communal norms in the rough majority of incidents, rather than religiously dictate how we should behave in all situations. Keep. Anthøny   ✉  15:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Having three users each keep their own version of the article seems like a good way of (re)starting a content dispute rather than resolving or preventing one. In any case, I have now commented out the categories on all three copies of the article so that these user subpages are not displayed in the Category namespaces.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have used the tactic a number of times in the course of my Mediation work. I truly do not think hosting deleted content in one's user space serves to re-start a content dispute; if anything, it is very much the opposite. Anthøny   ✉  20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added NOINDEX, which will exclude the page from most search engines. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 7 October 2008 (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.