Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Homy Homeopathy
- 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 debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Several homeopathy-related userspace articles. User hasn't edited in over a year, and the pages may well work out to POV forks of the current articles. They were showing up in Category:Homeopathy until quite recently, and, somewhat worryingly, when I was checking that I had got them all, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkSearch/Angelfire.com, which seems to say they're getting linked - maybe not. Still, this seems a fairly standard clean-up deletion.
List:
Of these, all but the last are more-or-less the same article, and are also pretty much a slightly modified two-year old version of the Homeopathy article.
Adam Cuerden talk 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: I like and appreciate these articles. A lot of time, wisdom, and NPOV references are within them. It is good to have these articles as a record of what was said about homeopathy before the anti-homeopathy editors began to hijack the article. Adam, have you written to its author and to the various others who have contributed to it? Dana Ullman Talk 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Whether the articles are wondrous or dreadful, if they are not appropriate for article space, then user pages are not appropriate for hosting them. Wikipedia is not a free web host. It is not Gmail, and it is not MySpace. There are many, many options for the private publication of material that cannot be held as articles, and, with no attention in that much time, it's stale as well (i.e. there isn't a realistic hope that homeopathy articles will suddenly bloom in the desert with this content). Utgard Loki (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not appropriate, and appear to be dead content forks. If anyone wants them they can achieve them themselves - there's been plenty of opportunity. Agree with Adam's points and Utgard above. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice. Generally great latitude is given for userspace content, particularly if the user intends on eventually rolling out the content, or parts thereof, into article space. Nevertheless, this material is quite clearly stale, as (in particular) the homeopathy article has been completely rewritten since this user content was established. I vote to delete, but should the user return to Wikipedia wishing to have it restored, then the request should immediately be granted. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete User can request undelete if they ever become active again, and they are woefuly out of date and very poor quality --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to restoring these upon user request. —Whig (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and move to close. Baegis (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Utgard Loki and others; WP is not a webhost. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Blank Other editors will still be able to access them, but outside links will not; if some editors find them useful, they should still be reachable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Septentrionalis has a fair point, but these are so old I consider this unlikely. (left message on user talk page) --Salix alba (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (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.