Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User's archive of deleted articles

< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SmokeyJoe (talk | contribs) at 13:38, 27 April 2012 (→User's archive of deleted articles: '''Keep for now, until after the WP:PORNBIO discussion is resolved'''. Users Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Erpert are on opposite sides of a debate, and their interactions are tending antagonistic. They should m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:38, 27 April 2012 by SmokeyJoe (talk | contribs) (→User's archive of deleted articles: '''Keep for now, until after the WP:PORNBIO discussion is resolved'''. Users Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Erpert are on opposite sides of a debate, and their interactions are tending antagonistic. They should m)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User's archive of deleted articles

Erpert has created an archive of deleted content in his userspace, linking them from his userpage (via a subpage ). He has made no effort whatever to to improve the articles with an eye towards reinstatement, and has, so far as I can tell, not made a single edit to any of them since userfication. Lately he's begun to add groundless/phony accusations of misconduct be editors he disagrees with to his userspace listing . This is clearly misuse os userspace, particularly for deleted BLPs that wholly lacked reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What, exactly, is your problem? If this nomination was from someone I didn't have a dispute with in the past, I could understand, but from you, it's obviously bad-faith (as in, "Hmmm, now, how can I get Erpert next?"). Eventually I might be able to move all this to WP:ABANDON or something, but I don't have time to update everything at once (I do have a life outside of Misplaced Pages, you know). Erpert 16:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep. Looks like normal userfication. The userfied articles are only four months old, so they're not exactly very stale yet. (If they were four years old I'd reconsider.) The pages in question are encyclopedia articles, not original research or personal promotion. They are not in any categories and don't have incoming links from the main namespace. Personally I don't see a problem here, at least not for now. JIP | Talk 19:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - 4 months with no edits is well past what I would consider an acceptable amount of time for userfication; if they haven't been worked on in all that time then it moves away from "I want to work on it" and towards "I want to keep a copy of deleted stuff". Addendum: I note that these were created, not directly userfied from what was deleted. This seems to be going against the requirement that the attribution history be preserved. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Read the history of them, and you'll see that I userfied most of them myself. WP:USERFY doesn't say I can't do that. Erpert 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep for now, until after the WP:PORNBIO discussion is resolved. Users Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Erpert are on opposite sides of a debate, and their interactions are tending antagonistic. They should minimise unnecessary interaction. If PRONBIO is tightened, Erpert may be required to give up on these. If PRONBIO is not much tightened, Erpert may get to have them undeleted. On the side of the debate is the possibility of amalgamatic many weakly-notable PORN BLPs, perhaps into lists of award winners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)