Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud


 * 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. Glass  Cobra  19:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud
This duplicate of a deleted article should never have been recreated without following due WP process, such as Deletion review because it is just a mirror and duplicate of a deleted article Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud with a similar discussion about this type of page going on at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Standforder with the creator of this type of POV article violating WP:POINT no end, now blocked for disruptive behavior, see User talk:Standforder. See additional detailed reasons and reasoning below. Thank you. -- IZAK (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY Delete per nominator at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Standforder and at Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud: And for the following reasons, all based on well-known standard Wikipedia policies: (1) Violation of Criteria for speedy deletion: Violation of G4: "Recreation of deleted material" (see Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud) which is defined as: "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." (2) "Basic rule that should be noted: User page: "...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. 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. Similarly, pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages." In addition, (3) As the nominator points out this material that has been reposted on the user's private page was part of an article that was legitimatly deleted and as such he has no right to simply paste it on his user page to save it (unless that is allowed for everyone who has one of their articles deleted, no matter how much they are attached to it, it's verboten.) Therefore, the correct procedure is for the user who likes his deleted article so much, to then do what every other Wikipedian must do and follow the procedures at Deletion review and Deletion policy and open a new vote and see what comes of it like everyone else in his situation. (4) In any case this kind of tendentious inflamatory anti-Talmudic vitriol from hostile sources that wish to destroy the credibility of one of Judaism's most treasured resources and the basis of its Oral Torah is a pure offensive WP:NOR (as noted in the original AfD at Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud) and even WP:NPA because there are many living Talmudists in Wikipedia articles as well as editors who are Talmudists and value it. There is a way of doing this kind of research, but this is not the way to present it and it would disgrace Wikipedia for stooping to such lows. (5) Clear violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX; WP:NOTWEBHOST; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. (6) Finally, see this important rule yet again that: Wikipedia is not your web host: "Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. See User page help for current consensus guidelines on user pages." This therefore should be deleted ASAP, no ifs ands or buts. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too messed up to be turned into an article, and Wikipedia is not a webhost; also per IZAK. Attempts to discuss it with the user have met with a stream of non-policy based excuses, accusations of censorship and bias and vandalism that ended with him suffering a block. Maintaining this to turn it into an article only works if the creator shows an intent to contribute productively to the encyclopedia; so far the user has shown a complete lack of clue (even when said clue is beaten into him with a big policy-stick) and seems to take that attitude that 'I am right, therefore everyone else must be wrong'. I fully expect to see the same collection of pleading excuses, offensive 'you are a biased anti-semite' rants (followed by apologies and yet more rants) and a refusal to entertain the possibility that he might be wrong when Stanforder gets free of his current block.Ironholds (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly speedy as WP:CSD G4. There's no need to go into detail as IZAK has already hit the nail on the head repeatedly. Bettia   (rawr!)  11:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as the same issue is still under discussion, a speedy delete of this would be wrong and premature. Second, the issues raised at grreat length above are also being discussed. Third, the requirements about articles which have been userfied or copied to userspace is ongoing, and is relevant. This includes copying material which was deleted from mainspace -- the argument above is aimed at mainspace articles. Fourthly, I find the argument that a user has been blocked to be unpersuasive when it comes to purging their userspace.  Fifth, deleting material without allowing the party involved a voice goes against fair play in the first place.  Collect (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The participant will be allowed 'a voice' in a few hours when his block expired. I'm not using the argument that he has been blocked as a reason to delete content; rather I'm pointing out that his history of disruption and inability to work with other users (which resulted in said block) makes it unlikely he will be able to turn this data into useful content. Ironholds (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yossiea (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Whoah! What more can be said. Delete as per above. Clear violation of multiple policies. Elucidate ( light up ) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems more like POV soapboxing than anything that would remotely be worth keeping as an article. Terraxos (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The identical copy of this page was now deleted see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Standforder (05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)), the same should aplly here as it's a mirror of that page. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily; some !votes were 'delete as it is already present elsewhere in his userspace'. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 9 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.