Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TickleMeister/Aspartame sources

 __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. BLP issues would be incorrect in this case; WP:POVFORK is the pertinent policy here. The information belongs better at SourceWatch regardless.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:TickleMeister/Aspartame sources
Mirror of another site; BLP issues.Novangelis (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Top of the page says that he wrote the content that the page was copied from. SourceWatch.Org also uses a MediaWiki, and the Aspartame article was all written by one user.  The talk page of that user mentions how he doesn't like Wikipedia, and the user's WP account had been blocked for 55 hours due to sockpuppetry.  Therefore, there probably isn't a copyvio case here. Also, user involvement in this report.  Train2104 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as I do not think the purpose of the page is to improve Wikipedia, and if it isn't I can't see any point to giving the editor webspace for this. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — Where are the "BLP issues" in this? The page is a compendium of cited material that I am trying to insert onto the Aspartame and Aspartame controversy pages. The material was excluded mostly on (bogus) grounds of undue weight. I managed to create a similar page on SourceWatch. Since when do we nominate individual work pages in user space for deletion? I think the BLP problems need to be carefully explored before such pages can be nominated for deletion. TickleMeister (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see which way this is going, so I've removed the content from the page. TickleMeister (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; I don't see how it may be improved...  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 11:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK. The create admits that it was created by cause they couldn't insert the material into the main space articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It is inappropriate to maintain a separate version of an article in your own userspace because you don't like the consensus version.  I see the owner has replaced the text with a link to an identical copy of his preferred version of the article on another website.  This, at the very least, violates the spirit of Wikipedia policy (WP:UP/WP:POVFORK) and should therefore still be deleted.  Peacock (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a USER WORK PAGE for god's sake. TickleMeister (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Plus, there is no need to give a user webspace, that is not what we do here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP, however I am baffled by the nomination rationale comment about "BLP issues". Unless BLP can also stand for something other than "biography of a living person", I don't see how that is applicable here.    Snotty Wong   confer 22:32, 10 August 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.