Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CelticWonder/Sean Kennedy (Author)

Closing instructions

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 Speedy Delete - Speedy G12 - Copy vio for violating the GFDL. I was a little dismayed though to get to the user talk page to explain the deletion and find no notice to the user. I usually check there first but forgot to today. Please don't do this, if you nominate a user talk page ALWAYS notify the user. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:CelticWonder/Sean Kennedy (Author)

Delete as per the guidance at WP:UP. This is a copy of an article that was deleted via AFD (then a year later recreated and then subjected to CSD, then confirmed at DRV) at the end of March. This copy of the article has sat in userspace for months with no evidence of improvement. Userspace should not be a place to store unsuitable BLP articles on an indef basis. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe someone can confirm this - because the page was created by simply cutting and pasting with no attribution, isn't it in breach of GFDL?--Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The GFDL is unambiguous. The attribution history must be preserved. This is not the case, as so it is a copyright violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Articles can be userfied for improvement, but this one hasn't seen any improvement and probably never will. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two months in userspace -- and since there is no requirement that articles in userspace be notable etc., no valid reason to force deletion. We do not have a Deadline here that I am aware of. Collect (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:U is a bit vague on time, it's pretty clear that it's not intended for userspace to be used to store pages that were deleted on a long-term basis. While two months could be considered not that long of a time, the complete lack of editing action suggests that it's simply there to endrun our AFD (and in this case CSD and DR) process.--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That and there doesn't seem to be any potential of this ever being turned into a legit article; a much lesser example of User:Netrat/United World Chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Collect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a breach of GFDL. I add that this exchange points to a similar problem with the related RantMedia article. The linkbomb in question was present at the creations of both this user page article and RantMedia. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note If deletion is to be based on GFDL violation, please provide links to the AFD, CSD, and DRV. I'd consider the deletion but I don't have time to research the deleted article.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and don't even play one on TV, but here you go: AFD, G4'd on March 26, 2009 per the log, DRV. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.