Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TruthbringerToronto/Publimedia International and related


 * 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 keep and blank pages. This has been going on for long enough, and no one else disagrees with the original close. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:TruthbringerToronto/Publimedia International
Multiple articles on Romanian magazines, originally created by in November 2006 -- no, not a typo -- and moved into User:TruthbringerToronto's userspace, where they have remained completely untouched for the last 31 months. The pages are:


 * /Publimedia International
 * /Acasa Magazin
 * /BUSINESS Magazin
 * /Ce se intampla, doctore?
 * /DESCOPERA
 * /ProMotor
 * /TARGET
 * /The ONE

As user space is not a permanent storage space for the unwanted, it's time to delete these. -- Calton | Talk 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just blank such pages. There is no need to advertise abandoned things, and then debate them.  If they are abandoned, no one minds if you blank them.  Blanking is far less confrontational to the user when he returns.  If you don't delete them, you won't upset some completely unexpect use of them.  Deletion offers no performance advantage over blanking.  Delete these if you like, but necessarily with the proviso that the user can have them undeleted on request (making it more bother than it is worth).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Untouched for 31 months is not a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even wrong. Userspace is NOT permanent storage for the unfixable (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.) -- and as its borderline spam, at best, that TruthbringerToronto couldn't be arsed to even make minor fixes in nearly three years, then yes, it should be deleted until he can clear some time in his no-doubt busy schedule -- maybe 2012? -- to actually do something. Until then, let him keep a copy on his hard drive.
 * Your nomination statement didn’t allege that the content is “unfixable”, or that it was serving as spam. It’s not obvious spam.  I don’t see why well circulating Romanian magazines shouldn’t be covered by wikipedia.  Sure, a case can be made that the presence of the pages is for spamming reasons, and you might note that the pages contained no third party sources.
 * If it were obvious that the pages fail our content policies, then a solid deletion nomination could be made, but you made no such allegations, and “untouched for the last 31 months”, on its own, is not a good reason for deletion. Being on Romanian magazines is not a reason for deletion.  The relevance of the username of the author still evades me..
 * All that aside, can you say why you think blanking is not good enough for cases like this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "when he returns"? He hasn't gone anywhere. You and User:Collect below need to get your stories straight. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User:TruthbringerToronto made an edit on 23 May 2009, several edits on 22 December 2008 and sporadic edits over months before that. I guess that I had erroneously presumed that he was an inactive contributor.  If he is not an inactive contributor, then it makes even less sense to delete his userpages without even discussing it with him.  You could have asked him about it on his talk page.  If you are quite sure, you could blank the page, courteously suggesting discussion if he disagrees.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I urge you to reconsider your position that inactive articles in userspace aren't causing harm. As long as they are indexed on Google, there's a good chance that someone will stumble on them and mistake them for mainspace articles. But, yes, blanking is sufficient for that concern.  Gigs (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC) and 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that short-term purposeless shadow- and pseudo-articles that could confuse readers shouldn't be left in published form in userspace. Editors in good standing, like Carlton, should be encouraged to blank them on site, with a polite edit summary.  I understand that the search engines do not index old page versions.  MfD should be resorted to when the user insists on maintaining inappropriate material.  Where special circumstances require deletion, there is usually a WP:CSD criteria covering it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * RELIST. ONe !vote -- especially one that doesn't actually address the issue -- is insufficient. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Just over two years is not permanent. User appears to still exist on WP, so claims of any abandonment are premature. Collect (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nearly three years, you mean. And, I repeat, not one single edit during that time, so "abandonment" is less a claim than an observable fact. Just so you know, God doesn't kill a kitten every time a page is deleted on Wikipedia, as you seem to believe. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um -- perhaps your statement was not thought out? My delete or keep votes invariably are reasoned, as opposed to those who believe kittens get killed for keeping too many or deleting too many pages.  Asserting that I believe such is inapt at best. Collect (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leave them blank/keep that's enough to mitigate the chance that someone will stumble upon them and think them articles. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2009 (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.