- 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 several editors who have argued for deletion have provided reasons in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while arguments for keeping have just been such things as WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is clearly and unambiguously a case of userspace being "used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". Putting it in a userspace subpage would make no difference: it would still be using userspace to indefinitely host a page that looks like an article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the page has in fact been copied to a userspace page of another user, without attribution. This is unacceptable, for at least three reasons: (1) the reason I have given above; (2) it amounts in effect to trying to subvert a possible deletion by re-creating the content elsewhere, in violation of criterion for speedy deletion G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion); (3) it is a copyright infringement, as copy-pasting loses the attributions in the editing history. I shall therefore delete that page too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:DHanson317[edit]
- User:DHanson317 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
DHanson317 (talk · contribs) has been inactive since March 2014. Their last activity was to delete their user page. Subsequently reverted by an IP and has been used as a WP:FAKEARTICLE ever since DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the page is similar to how it was before Anson stopped maintaining it. It's useful because it allows us to see all verified, pending, and unverified supercentenarians in one list. It's not a "fake article".
- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not only NOT what User pages are for (as per WP:NOTWEBHOST) but I consider it, at the very least, bad manners to use someone's talk page after they have deleted all its content. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see anything mentioned in WP:NOTWEBHOST that applies to this page. The material on this page IS relevant to working on Wikipedia.
- Why is it bad manners? I and a few others decided to maintain it as it was a useful list. I could have transferred it all on to my user page but it would take up too much space when added with the stuff on mine.
- Ollie231213 (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above, user DHanson317's last activity on Wikipedia was to delete his userpage, on 10 March 2014. The several hundred edits to this page since then have been by other users. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would call it a WP:FAKEARTICLE - it could easily be called List of Living supercentenarians. Had someone just slapped a speedy on it with that reason, I may have well deleted it (and it's still vulnerable for that action). Such pages should not be in the top user page, but as a draft in a user sub page. If it's a page for improvement - why not move it to Draft:List of Living supercentenarians, it will be safe there so long as your make an improvement to it at least every six months. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The why have you not made any such complaint about the article's content BEFORE NOW? This page has been around for four years, with the content remaining similar throughout, but only now you are complaining that it is a "fake article".
The whole point of this article is that it is NOT the same as the List of living supercentenarians article. The idea is that it merges the lists of verified, pending, and unverified supercentenarians in to one list that is accessible. The content is relevant to the subject of longevity. The benefit of using Wikipedia for this is that it has an auto-update function, meaning that ages do not have to be changed manually.
I see loads of other users on Wikipedia using their personal page for similar things. At what point does a user page "look like an article"? Just when you say so?
- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are over 4.5 million articles on the encyclopedia, and only a couple hundred thousand people who edit regularly. Since most editors work almost entirely in the article name space, it's not uncommon for user pages to have little or no traffic. In short, the reason no one said anything until now, is that no one noticed it until now. And for your other concerns about differences in the layout of the content, you should discuss your concerns on the article talk page, not attempt to maintain a separate page that contravenes Wikipedia policy. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 21:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Bill W. There should be no copies of articles. If Ollie wants to merge the list, simply add another column for its status and make the table sortable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:10, 3 December 2014 (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.