Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikid77/AK

 __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. This is a user's preferred version of disputed content with BLP concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikid77/AK
The content of this user subpage essentially duplicates a previous version of the article Amanda Knox, which was redirected to Murder of Meredith Kercher (on the basis of WP:BLP1E and WP:POVFORK) following an AfD discussion in June. This userspace copy, which has not received a single edit for six months, comes across as a stale draft.

Although the title would suggest a biography of a particular individual, in truth it contains statements relating to multiple subjects and draws information from some highly suspect sources (including the site, which advocates the innocence of the subject in the matter of Kercher's murder). The creator's intention that the page provide "NPOV coverage of all related events" would seem to confirm that, far from taking Knox as its focus, it serves more as a rehash of selected portions of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, skewed against the Italian judiciary. In addition, I propose that even a cursory glance at the content will shrug off the idea that the page is somehow NPOV: the articles False confession, Falsified evidence and Police brutality are listed in a "See also" section.

Even if the redirect in the Amanda Knox article were to be removed at some point in the future, I doubt that a one-sided, pseudo-biographical account of this sort could ever be considered to conform to the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia mainspace – in which case, I argue against its continued existence as a draft and imitation of an article in the creator's userspace. BLP concerns abound, and the general impression is one of a distorted content fork masked as a full biography of one particular subject.

The following lines from WP:STALEDRAFT are relevant to this situation: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."  Super Mario  Man  23:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Blank and lock .Delete. If that's allowed as an option. I can't pretend the page is suitable for userspace, but the issue of "why doesn't Amanda Knox get her own article" comes up periodically. This page isn't in itself a complete answer to that, but it's a good example to be able to link to and it would be good to still be able to access the page history. --FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, FormerIP. Not that I don't understand that argument, but wouldn't the revision history of Amanda Knox itself suffice for that purpose, given that there is little to distinguish this userspace draft with previous versions of the mainspace article as edited by Wikid77?  Super Mario  Man  00:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any of the versions of Amanda Knox were as off-the-wall as this one, and it also has the lovely German painting. I think it's good to have for posterity and as an explanation as to what one of the issues is with allowing parallel articles in cases of BLP1E. A wikilink speaks a thousand words. Would deleting the page but keeping the edit history so that versions can still be accessed be technically possible? --FormerIP (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is only the thinnest of differences in word count between the previous version linked above (Wikid77's first edit to the Amanda Knox article, later shortened), and the current version of the userspace draft. The numbers of paragraphs and lines turn up the same in a Word document (daft painting included in both - I'd almost forgotten about the art!) It just seems to me that if, in future, it is necessary to re-tread the reasons for maintaining Amanda Knox as a redirect (e.g. because of WP:BLP1E concerns), the page history of the draft is somewhat superfluous given that old IDs of the Amanda Knox article have attained a similar, if not identical, degree of zaniness.  Super Mario  Man  04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I didn't realise that. --FormerIP (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Stale draft, preferred version, content fork - any and all of these apply. pablo 01:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or preferably Blank, NOINDEX and Protect - I believe FormerIP is right - this version is far more POV than the previous ones (in fact almost comedically so - just look at the image & caption), and serves usefully to illustrate an answer to the above question with "this is why there shouldn't be a separate article". Yeah, just delete it, I hadn't realised that a version of the actual article had achieved such a level of ludicrousness - as such we don't need this for any reason. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am a firm believer that Wikipedia needs an article on Knox, and that any BLP1E argument against that position ignores over half of the policy guidelines. However, this garbage deserves no space at Wikipedia.  I think I'm dumber for having read it.LedRush (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A stale draft that hasn't been worked on for over 6 months. Bluewave (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE: userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete in favour of direct references to the mainspace history. This is not a  clear cut non notable person that we shouldn't have an article on, but an article is premature at this stage.  While there is so much uncertainty and speculation in the media in place of historical evidence, it is best that we hesitate to cover this person in detail.  The leaving of the mainspace history intact, and the talk page enables us to work on the article there, which is good, and it means that no editor need work on it in userspace.  Working on it in one place is greatly preferred for best practice of WP:Copyright compliance, and this userspace fork is a WP:copyrights hazard.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per coat rack. Jonathan (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - We do not need fake articles in here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 29 December 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.