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

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 all. T. Canens (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]). 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 [2]. This is clearly misuse os userspace, particularly for deleted BLPs that wholly lacked reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, you know). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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 ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 PORNBIO is tightened, Erpert may be required to give up on these. If PORNBIO 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)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe, I know we haven't been agreeing much, but I'm glad you're seeing what's going on. I'm not sure a resolution to the tweaking of WP:PORNBIO will happen anytime soon (if at all), but you'll also notice that I haven't created any new pornography-related biographical articles during this time either. To be fair, I do plan to use WP:ABANDON in the future for this kind of situation, but not yet. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 14:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook case of WP:STALEDRAFT ("should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content"). SmokeyJoe's argument about the ongoing pornbio debate is unconvincing: these were deleted while the present wording of pornbio was still present in the guideline, so even if the outcome of the debate was to uphold that wording, it is unlikely that that would change the basis for these deletions. And even if it did, the articles could be returned through undeletion; there is no need for these userspace backups. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - 'deleted BLPs that wholly lacked reliable sources' says it all. If the articles were on a less contentious topic I might take a different view, but this is the kind of material that should not be included anywhere on Wikipedia without reliable sources, including userspace. Robofish (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weak BLP point, with the people so far from private persons, and the subjects as presented being essentially fictional characters. However, when push comes to shove, Robofish is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise; all the delete !votes are from people who have !voted that way against me in the past about pornography-related material. Is there a Category:Wikipedians against Erpert or something? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be right, considering none of you had said anything today. Maybe y'all should read WP:BATTLE (or is it okay to ignore that too?). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of us had more interesting things to do today, sorry we could not be at your beck and call. I will not speak for others, but personally I am against this project being used by porn PR firms as free advertising for their product. Anal Fisting Redheads Volume 20 might scrape up some AVN or Xhibit or whatever award, but honestly, all that is is the echo chamber of the industry itself. If no media outlets independent of the porn industry gives enough of a fuck to take note of such a film, then it should not exist on the Wikipedia. And once it is deleted, it should not be allowed to exist in userspace for 4 months. There s really nothing you can do to squeeze notability out of any of the above to return them to article-space. "Lesbian Panty Adventures", for example, will not win an Oscar tomorrow. There is no justifiable reason for you to keep copies of these articles other than disagreement with the original deletion. Tarc (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're actually admitting that all your delete !votes are because you don't like porn? That's an extreme bias, so your !votes should not count. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 11:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, no, I rather enjoy porn; me and the missus are regular visitors to xhamster.com, among others. I just dislike the proliferation of non-notable porn on the Wikipedia. Actors and films that actually meet the WP:GNG I am perfectly fine with, but WP:PORNBIO cannot be the standalone laurels on which to rest. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Then why are you only coming after porn-related articles I created? That's all I want to know. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Bridget B, give that 2 months then delete it. Start user-conduct RFC on Erpert ASAP. Hipocrite (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User-conduct RFC on me? Why? As retaliation? (And for you to have caused all that trouble, you have a lot of nerve saying I need an RFC.) Maybe y'all should realize that Wikipedia is not censored, so guess what? Porn-related articles are going to be here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 11:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Start user-conduct RFC on Erpert ASAP." Yeah, you have the ability to do it yourself, Hipocrite. Are you waiting for someone else to do it for you? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything not substantively edited in the last 3 monthes, and keep the rest (if any) for now. I have no dog in the WP:PORNBIO fight, and I think Erpert should perhaps retract that claim, unless there's evidence of actual wrongdoing. --N Y Kevin @178, i.e. 03:17, 6 May 2012 (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.