Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:HHR

 __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 the GFDL-violating revision. Tim Song (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:HHR
This is a blanked back up copy of List of debaters (see this edit) that was deleted after Articles for deletion/List of debaters, the editor has not edited since Sep 2009 and as per WP:UP this should be deleted.

I have also nominated the user page of this user as well for the same reason. Codf1977 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is now. The user had already removed the problematic content themselves more than eight months ago. If the page were deleted now, that would mean deleting the MfD warnings that were issued to the user today. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see and agree with your point, so why not just delete the one pre-blanking version of the page. Codf1977 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Selective revision delete of the first edit. WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "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." (mine emphasized) This userspace draft of a previously deleted article violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But is that even necessary? Selective deletion says, "This is generally only done when the revisions contain personal information of a user or some other person (telephone numbers, etc.) or copyright violations. For most kinds of simple vandalism, merely reverting the page to a good version is considered sufficient." I didn't see anything libelous or invasive of privacy in that first edit. WP:NOTWEBHOST and indefinite archiving are not concerns that rise to the level of seriousness that we need to go back and delete such edits. Just blanking such content is sufficient, and that has already been done. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is necessary. Selective deletion is applicable because this userspace draft, though blanked, violates GFDL and the guideline Plagiarism because the editors who contributed to List of debaters are not attributed in this draft. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Content lacking proper attribution is a licensing/copyright violation, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. They tend to be handled less rigorously than violations involving external content. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No actual grounds for deletion furnished. BTW, lists, as such, are not copyrightable under US law, so that whole straw man has no bearing here.   The case law regarded telephone directories.  Collect (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is inaccurate. The userspace draft not only has a list of debaters, it also has three paragraphs of original material in the introduction. The lack of attribution for those three paragraphs of original material makes this a GFDL violation. This is confirmed by . Cunard (talk) 21:49, 11 May 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.