Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Splat5572/Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list




 * 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 as an inappropriate use of user space by a sock of a banned user. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Splat5572/Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list
Violates WP:UP. It is an archived copy of a deleted template that didn't meet template policy. User is banned, and the page is worthless. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dislike the use here of "worthless", and disagree.  Convert to a redirect to User:Splat5572.  Such pages are not worthy of a community discussion at MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me rephrase, it is worthless in the respect that the content is already in the article where it should be. This user attempted to set up a failed scheme whereby sections of a highway's exit list was not included in the article proper, but rather a template that inserted that section into the article. This was done on his part, because both the articles on the Hollywood Freeway and U.S. Route 101 in California have duplicate content. Other sets of articles were done the same, ideally in the guise of keeping two exits lists in synchronicity with a single edit (to the template). The templates were deleted as improper under template usage guidelines. (Templates are for navagation or the simplified creation of output like an infobox, not for the storage of content that should be in the mainspace.) This user, before being banned, archived his "template" in user space, presumably for resurrection later, in contravention of WP:UP. Since this user will not be returning, this page should just be deleted. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If, as I read, by "worthless" you meant "redundant", then I agree. Delete, now that we're here, but in general it is more efficient to blank with an explanatory edit summary.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom/User page: userspace "is not intended to indefinitely archive [a] preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content". The user retired in August 2008 and was indef-blocked after a CheckUser case in November 2008. I know that "indefinitely blocked" does not always mean "permanently blocked", but it does in >99% of cases. Also delete User:Splat5572/U.S. Route 95 in Arizona, which appears to be the same type of page. –Black Falcon (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Black Falcon. No possible usage. Glass  Cobra  17:54, 1 February 2010 (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.