Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley

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 withdraw by request of nominator. Versus22_talk 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley[edit]

This is a userfied version of a page deleted by AFD, and an editor (other than Geo Swan) working on the page[1] has immediately abused the WP:U process by attempting to sidestep the AFD process by creating redirects to the page: [2] [3] It is no longer a good faith use of userspace. THF (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC), clarified 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete(or let someone else userfy it) Userfying articles deleted for AfD is done so that the article can be brought up to standards, not to avoid the deletion of the article. The fact that this user is linking to their userspace version from the mainspace shows their intention to be the latter not the former. This is without prejudice against someone else working on the article. Chillum 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how moving the page elsewhere in userspace helps. It is already being worked on by multiple editors and it was a user other than Geo Swan who is linking from mainspace. THF (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea I had in mind was if a user had the good faith intention to finish bringing the article up to standards. If there was such a person I would not deny them that because of this editor's actions. Failing that I say delete.Chillum 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Allow the productive users to attempt to bring this up to standards. It is better to warn the person making the inappropriate links and block them if they don't stop than it is to delete the article. I see attempts to improve the article being made. Chillum 15:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep As above.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Good faith efforts have been made to improve this article. The Yvonne Bradley article can be blocked from editing, while is work is being performed on an improved version. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chillum. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note from deleting/userfying admin - PJHaseldine should be warned against making cross-namespace redirects, and this MfD closed. A good faith effort is being made to improve material - thew effort continues as evidenced in history, and this is a perfectly acceptable use of userspace per WP:USER Fritzpoll (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like good-faith attempts to improve the article. Warning for cross-namespace redirects should be appropriate. In fact, it probably would be better to have everything link to the redlinked article space name. That would make the move back enough to get it into the article universe, instead of fixing redirects. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page, but speedy delete the cross-namespace redirects (or retarget them to an appropriate mainspace page). Stifle (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SNOW, I withdraw the nomination to reduce the amount of editor time spent on this; there appears WP:CONSENSUS that deleting the page is not the appropriate response. THF (talk) 14:11, 9 March 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.