Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Sundostund (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a violation of WP:COPYARTICLE, this is apparently a recreation of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present. Sundostund (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:COPYARTICLE says we should not "indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content". Note the word "indefinitely". I am inclined to give considerable leeway to an apparently good-faith user quite plausibly temporarily storing material from their own deleted-at-AFD article, which could possibly(?) be used in some form somewhere else in article or draft space. If it just sits there for months, by all means let's delete it, but in this case the AFD was just 4 days ago. Martinp (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sundostund (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, since it's a copy of an article that was deleted at AfD, i.e. deemed as being unfit for an encyclopaedia, sitting in userspace masquerading as an article, including apparently being linked to off-Wiki. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make three claims and two of them are wrong:
- the page wasn't linked off-Wiki and if it was that wouldn't be relevant or a problem
- it does not "masquerade" as an article, but a hatnote like Template:Userpage notice could be added to make that clearer
Moreover, you have cited WP:NOTWEBHOST but I fail to see why the page would be incompatible with that policy.

____

In the AfD people failed to meet my request for specificity – mainly to cite specific parts of linked policies along with a short explanation why the article would meet it – could you make it better and please cite the specific part of the linked policy you think applies here?

I still conclude that the deletion was unwarranted and arbitrary. However, that is irrelevant here and consensus was deletion despite (again only a personal conclusion:) reasons-rationale for such being insufficient.

I intend to keep working on the page, which is similar to articles like 2022 or Timeline of psychology, and to use parts of it in other articles. Wikis other than Wikipedia have different syntax, don't have wikilink-hovercards and could be seen as a competition to Wikipedia which is where I intend to contribute to (rather than to any content-redundant alternatives). Prototyperspective (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: You seem to have totally misunderstood what Wikipedia is and isn't: it's an encyclopaedia, not a website where people can upload and store whatever they want, and the userpages aren't your pages where you can do whatever you want, but are to be used only for things that are directly related to the encyclopaedia (see Wikipedia:Userpages: "User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site", and "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article" is listed as material that can not be kept on user pages, which directly relates to your list, since an article with the exact same content has been deleted at AfD for not being fit for WP). . - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think I understand that and it is related to the encyclopaedia, for example because I intend to use parts of it in other articles (typically in modified form). It is not used as a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site and is the opposite of topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article.

Additional note: I don't care much about whether the page is deleted and am already looking for other Wikis to put this up despite the drawbacks to that. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Martinp makes a reasonable point that the AfD was just a few days ago, and this editor is fully entitled under AGF to sandbox or otherwise work on a usersubpage they think will make it back into pagespace at some point. This isn't some stale draft from an editor who has long since disappeared. Bold User:Prototyperspective doesn't need permission from us to work on articles, even deleted ones, unless they 1) put such material into pagespace without consensus, or 2) abandon the draft and leave it stale for some time. If Prototyperspective feels like they might face disagreement in draft space, they are welcome to utilize their userspace for such workshopping. I reject the quotes by User:Thomas.W as inapplicable in this specific case, because this is active workspace, not malicious or disruptive webhosting. BusterD (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~Keep - A plausible effort to rework a deleted article in user space into something acceptable. The deletion discussion said it didn't belong in article space. This is user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2022 (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.