Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikid77/Morocco




 * 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. I consider the GFDL argument to be of great weight since a GFDL violation is tantamount to copyvio. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikid77/Morocco
A duplicate of the Morocco article, this belongs to the article namespace. This is largely inactive. I had twice requested the user earlier for deletion. Jay (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the page was created by a very active user, and was created to do some testing, which seemed to have been done. There no question the creation and use was legitimate, the only question is whether a page created for testing, and not edited for some time, should be removed. I realize the editor has been contacted, and has not yet responded, but I'd be inclined to ask again at the user talk page in case the other mention was missed, and see what the editor wants to do. If anyone is concerned that it might be mistaken for an actual article, would the user page template help alleviate that concern? I may be biased, as I just checked, and I have a copy of an article in my user space which I was using for testing. Ironically, my last edit to that page was within a few days of the last user edit to the page under discussion, although I believe I've made a few test edits which I haven't saved. (I just added the user page template to my own example.) I'm leaning toward keep, although if unedited for a couple years, would consider a different conclusion.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Jay already contacted Wikid77 twice and was ignored both times &mdash; once on 10:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC) and the second time on 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) &mdash; I see no need to contact Wikid77 a third time. The userpage template would not alleviate the concern that this a GFDL copyright violation of Morocco. This userspace draft violates Plagiarism, which states that: "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit." By hosting this unattributed content in his/her userspace, Wikid77 is not providing adequate credit to those who wrote the Morocco article. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, largely per Sphilbrick. I added  .  This should be sufficient.  When no longer needed, the page can be blanked or redirected; there is no need for others to insist on deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion is preferable to blanking because it removes the GFDL infringement from the page history and prevents the undoing of the blanking. Content that violates WP:UP should be removed through deletion, not blanking. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep until WP:DEADLINE passes. Collect (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADLINE is inapplicable in this situation. The introduction of WP:DEADLINE states: "Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. A small number of articles might make Wikipedia 1.0, but the vast majority will not and for the balance there is no deadline. There are various points of view on what this lack of a deadline means." Morocco is already an article in the mainspace and has already made Wikipedia 1.0. Wikid77 has not used this draft to build or expand upon Morocco, so "there is no deadline" is irrelevant. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a textbook example of WP:UP. Last edit was in October, and the editor was asked nearly a whole year ago whether it was going to be used again. Keeps above are either unconvincing or fatuous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He hasn't edited it for so long, it's presumably not needed, so let's just blank it. Wikd77 is a serious editor and he probably considers the question not worth the time to consider it.  It think the question is too unimportant to be considered.  Forgotten copies should be blanked/redirected on sight, and only brought to MfD if the user is being obstinate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an argument based on a personal dislike for deletion, not one based on policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Deletions are important and I frequently support deletions.  My dislike is for the inefficient time wasting unnecessary, pointless MfD discussions.  I don't want to feed the silly impulse to file MfDs on unimportant pages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * XfD does not need to be a time-consuming process. We have a deletion policy and people can read it. Old, crusty draft pages fall under the category of deletion candidates, and that should be all there is to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * GFDL violations are important pages to bring to MfD and filing MfDs for them should be encouraged. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Potential violations, but yes, that's true. Support delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikd77 is a serious editor and he probably considers the question not worth the time to consider it. – if Wikid77 will not even consider or respond to two polite, reasonable requests to remove inappropriate material from his/userspace, Wikid77 evidently does not consider the userspace draft to be worthy of retaining. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP/WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states that "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages" and per my replies to the "keep" votes above. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 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.