Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Usgrant7/RLPSandBox

 __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. BencherliteTalk 11:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Usgrant7/RLPSandBox


Userspace fork written by industry insider which conflicts rather dramatically with the outside view e.g. from the Citizens Advice Bureau, which has documented cases of unenforceable threats against children, unenforceable (below cutoff limits) threats of bankruptcy proceedings, pursuit of people who have never been charged with anything let alone convicted, disproportionate and falsified charges and so on. In other words, this fork is spam and is of no use whatsoever to the project. Oh, and he just got blocked for WP:3RR for reverting four times to this version. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 15:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. It looks like an abandoned draft. The editor hasn't edited (anything) for months. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes he has, mainly reverts to this preferred version of this article (4 reverts and a block, in fact). Guy (Help!) 18:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Are we forgetting this is a userspace draft? Even if the article is poorly written, it has a ton of sources that will be lost if it is deleted.  Altho I am actively opposed to POV and promotional articles in the mainspace, this isn't in the mainspace.  When the editor comes back from his block, he should be given the chance to work with others to improve this and run it thru AfC.  Loss prevention is a very big field.  The current article on it in mainspace is a very POV from a perspective of a activism organization and does not reflect any viewpoint from the industry at all.  To an outsider, this appears to be an edit war that has expanded beyond the boundary of the page in mainspace and nothing more, IMO. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a "userspace draft" any more, hasn't been for some time. It's a copy of a version already posted to mainspace and identified (by external sources) as having serious issues. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I copy a needy article into a sandbox so I can work on it, that somehow makes it not a working draft in userspace? It is a draft; it is in userspace.  I absolutely fail to follow your logic. And I stand by the opinion that nothing gets served by deleting it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a stale draft/fake article; were the fellow actively working on it as a draft it would be different, but as it is the thing appears to be nothing more than what is described in WP:FAKEARTICLE. -— Isarra ༆ 19:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete because the material is already in the article history of Retail loss prevention, and the version removed there  can be merged selectively into the existing article without this  There is material and sources that can be used, though of course the tone is wrong, as customary with PR. While this version is obviously a POV presentation of the subject, written by an openly acknowledged POV editor, editing furthermore for a group with COI,    the current version of the article  is equally POV in the opposite direction. Guy's comments above sound like he agrees with one side of it--I might to some degree agree with him about that particular aspect, but that has nothing to do with how the article should be written. There are also undue issues in  related duplicative partially  articles, e.g. Civil recovery, by focusing on the UK, and on one particular aspect of the general topic, and on one case in the UK about one that  small aspect of the topic. Frankly, the removal of this material without any attempt to integrate it does not reflect well on the experienced editor(s)  who took part and engaged in a revert war where they knew enough to ensure that only their opponent got blocked. Perhaps Gtwfan does not yet have the experience here to do the integration & the necessary expansion, but if he would like, I will help him with it.  DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The User:Usgrant7/RLPSandBox user space draft efforts to work out the wording/sorcing of material for the Retail loss prevention article started 4 May 2011‎. WP:FAKEARTICLE allows short-term hosting of reasonable content under development ("for Editing and Perfecting") towards moving it into mainspace. It's been a year and a half, long past the short-term hosting phase. The page has stopped being content under development towards moving it into mainspace. Rather, it now is preferred version of disputed content and the userspace is serving as a free web host to indefinitely host the page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2012 (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.