Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smithforkranch


 * 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 Speedy delete per CSD G12. Wikipedia doesn't maintain proven copyvio content for any temporary reason. If the user wishes to state a valid claim to ownership of the material, he or she may then have the content restored. Xoloz (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Smithforkranch
Was marked for CSD as spam, should be discussed first. Kei lana  23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep They were a WP user for less than an hour before they were bit. User should be given a chance to discuss on their talk page via  or a personal note before I could justify siding with a delete.-- 12 N oo n  2¢ 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed that this page, User:Rosencomet/Grey School of Wizardry, and User:Infronics were all tagged for speedy as spam by the same IP, possibly trying to make a point, then Keilana denied the speedy and brought them here. I am leaning towards thinking the IP noms are in bad faith (nothing against Keilana).-- 12 N oo n 2¢ 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be wrong, of course. Have a read of Speedy deletion criterion #G11 -- that's "G", as in "General". I tag several such pages daily, and hey presto, they're all gone. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The page is a copyright violation of http://www.smithforkranch.com/history/history.htm and http://www.smithforkranch.com/history/history2.htm, and so I initially marked it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. Seeing as how the user is probably the copyright holder, though, I reconsidered and posted a notice on their talk page instead.  Regardless, it can't be kept in its current state, so I'd suggest cleanup for the time being and deletion if nothing changes in a week or so. -- jonny - m  t  07:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This approach seems reasonable to me. Keep for now, but delete after a week as a copyvio if no claims of fair use have been made. Terraxos (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, though the copyvio issue that is mentioned is concerning. Give them a bit of time, I guess. If nothing comes out of it, delete. Master of Puppets Care to share?  04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, if the user does not contribute or assert permission to use the content, it's a copyvio and should be treated like any other copyvio. --Core desat 15:00, 21 December 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.