Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tsmollet


 * 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. User appears to be very cooperative, though slightly SPA, has removed the content and nominator withdrew. — xaosflux  Talk  05:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tsmollet
Aticle was deleted almost two years ago at Articles_for_deletion/The_Odin_Brotherhood. Only maintenance edits have been done since. The intention of the editor is clearly keeping a deleted article on wikipedia, just see how the page starts saying "(...) Here--on my user page--it is safe from those who attack it!". -- Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Userfied in defiance of deletion, not in order to improve it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This leaves us with an interesting question. A more recent copy of the same material is listed at http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Odin_Brotherhood Does this constitute a copyright violation because they have a non-commercial clause even though it was previously released under GFDL requirements? - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesing indeed. Their first version is from September 2006 and Tsmollet's version is from December 2006, so this text here wouldn't be a copyvio at first sight. However, it should be compared with the deleted article, since it was deleted on February 2006 and could actually constitute a copyvio unless the text was written by the same author (since he would be the copyright holder and could release it under any license he wanted to). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only people who could sue are the people who made significant contributions to the article, as only they have a copyright in the matter. Unless one of those people cares, I think it best to let the issue rest.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments for deletion of the article (including notability and non-verifiability)  are not arguments for deletion in userspace. Userspace does not require notability at all, and many pages have "fiction" on them.  If you have a problem with the article due to misstatement of fact or the like, why not talk with the user?  I see no crime in this article, and GFDL license protects WP for the article as it stood under that license.  Collect (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question:Why do you mention fiction? This article presents itself as factual, and deleted for being false. With a statement like Here--on my user page--it is safe from those who attack it! do you think the editor has any intention of correcting it, or is he just using userspace as permanent storage?&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainly because the original arguments for deletion (which are relevant here to the extent that they show why the article was moved from mainspace) included accusations of "fiction." Since many of the arguments cited for removal from mainspace do not apply to userspcae, the fact that it was deleted from mainspace is not a reason per se for removal from userspace.  In facg the three main arguments for deletion were "non-notable" (does not apply to userspace) "OR" (which does not apply to userspace) and "fiction" which does not apply to userspace. Thus the fact it was deleted from mainspace is not a reason to delete it here, nor was the deletion made from mainspace with the intent that it had to be made into an article in userspace. Collect (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument is that there is no reason to keep this on wikipedia host space because it doesn't stand a chance of becoming an article. From User_page "(...) [userspace] 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." --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nobody did talk to the user, as this page recommends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see the point as the article is not really salvageable (and I forgot to warn him of this discussion, ooops, I warned him just now). If he wants the text for some purpose then he can ask the deleting admin to send him a copy of the deleted text, or he can use the tinwiki text. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Userfied articles aren't supposed to be kept indefinitely - they're supposed to be worked on and resubmitted to DRV, and that does not seem to have happened here. The user hasn't worked on it since last November; looking at his contributions, he only seems to be interested in promoting this organisation. I don't think this stands much chance of ever making it into article space. Terraxos (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummmmmm I thought user pages were for personal use.  I saved the article because many had worked on it and I thought it was well done.  If you want, I can erase it, since, as has been pointed out, superior versions now exist on other wikis.  Indeed, I would erase it right now but I suspect someone would then claim that I am violating some arcane wikipedia policy....  So,what do you want me to do?

There is no reason to preserve it any longer, as it has enjoyed great success at tinwiki (rated #20)

Tinwiki.org Popular Pages

For those who think the odin brotherhood is fiction, tell that to the 165 people here:

odinbrotherhood.freeforums.org (Cut and paste. The spammer here blocks it.  Why, I do not know)

By the way, I do not know who Collect is, but thanks for the excellent points. --Tsmollet (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia user space is not a place to host stuff that can't hack it as articles indefinitely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * nom withdrawn user has blanked the page on request. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:48, 29 January 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.