Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels

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 - by the headcount, it's close to no consensus - by precendent and policy, users are allowed significant but not infinitely leeway to userfy deleted articles (unless there are copyright/BLP concerns, which don't seem to apply here), and deletion at this point would be somewhere between miniscule and no leeway; precedent and policy is that such articles are typically kept. Given the acrimony of the discussion below, I'm concerned closing as no consensus will be taken as licence to continue harassing the "good guy" to win a dispute that's clearly become personal. So I'm going to close this as Come back in several months if nothing has changed. Which is probably more like "no consensus" than "keep" if you want to be pedantic, but not if you want to run a second MfD tomorrow. Wily D 08:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels[edit]

NOTE: with user name change, the page is now at User:The "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels

Userfication of an already deleted article (Deleted due to WP:NOTDIR ). User is blocked as well KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 13:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is the funniest place. Apropos of this nomination, this is a normal userfication of a deleted article that editors of the article approved during AFD, that the closing admin approved, and that admin A. B. also approved hypothetically on user talk. The other nomination and history has no bearing, as does the temporary block for invalid first username choice, which is pending a new username request. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. Deleting this seems a bit excessive, and a bit like gravedancing. The userfication seems well within allowable practices. --Jayron32 13:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nope.....check this policy It's not allowed in userspace, and no it's not grave dancing either. This user has edit warred to put his preferred version in , was blocked over it and has re-created his preferred version in two spots on his userspace. This is gaming this system, in the least. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 13:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are deleted articles not userfied all the time? --Jayron32 13:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kosh, maybe try reading and understanding the entire policy section before invoking it. WP:FAKEARTICLE, the section you linked to in your remark, says, in part: "Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable" Since you have advanced no reason why it is not acceptable in this case this does in fact look like more of the behavior you and one or two other users are displaying towards the creator of this page, a kind of desperation to find any reason whatsoever to get them in trouble and make them look bad. I don't understand what all this hostility is about but this deletion nom is weak and seems petty and uninformed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' - sometimes, however, when the page is userfied after an AFD ends in delete and the page is not changed it can appear that the userfication was done to circumvent the AFD. This gentleman (I'm assuming it's a "he" ) has two copies, completely unchanged, one on his talk page, and one in a subpage, both are identical to the deleted page,he's had time to make changes, but has not done so. He's in G4 territory as of now, (in my opinion ). KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 14:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KoshVorlon is oddly mistaken. The userfied copy is fine. The other version began as a copypaste from an earlier draft, underwent significant changes to become a fork attempt, and was deleted from its portion of the page repeatedly (while retaining history) by KoshVorlon. This is singularly at odds with the gentleman's (assuming) description. Of course templating is appropriate and will happen as soon as I can find that template. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR still applies, as it did when the original article was deleted. There has been no sign of any attempt to convert the article into a form that is acceptable for Wikipedia. There is, of course, nothing to stop the user from writing a new draft, providing that it is substantially different from the previously deleted version. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~tending towards~~ delete- articles that have been deleted are frequently userfied when the user has indicated they want to work on the article to address the concerns raised in the AfD. If during this MfD the user is able to work on the article and begin showing that the article could be something other than a directory, I would be willing to change my mind and allow additional time. This MfD seems a bit premature given that the article was just deleted at AfD, but in all reality I dont see how ANY amount of work can address the the concerns raised in the original AfD, and there were no edits during that AfD which suggested that the article could be converted to something other than a directory(~~stricken per comments that any attempted edits had been undone~~)(unstriking as the editing and "Path forward" on the talk page give no indication there is any ideas that will actuall address NOTDIR that got it deleted in the first palce. this is not an instance where additional time to dig up hard copy sourcing or translate foreign language sourcing would address the deletion concerns). -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC) revised second time -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep nomination fails to advance a valid reason for deletion. Deleted articles are userfied all the time. If, in several months nothing has happened with it then WP:STALEDRAFT would apply. At the moment this user is basically under attack from all directions so it is not surprising they have not found the time to work on this yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment er..... WP:SPEEDY G4 very much applies and is ground for deletion KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 18:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment .....and he's moved it yet again over here incluiding the MFD tag. Gaming anyone ? KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 18:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's be ause his account was renamed and it is appropriate to move the page to correspond with the new name. Every time you comment here you post another half-baked remark that shows your very poor understanding of whatever policy it is you are trying to invoke. You are making a ridiculous spectacle of yourself in your desperation to find fault with everything this user does. Think before you speak next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this page were to be deleted, than User:Neutralhomer/List of AT&T U-verse Channels should also be deleted as that one is a "copy/paste" of this one without attribution and therefore may violate the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Powergate92Talk 18:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I have permission from two seperate admins (proof at request) to have the pages on my userspace. My use has been approved as I am working on a way (with User:TheRedPenOfDoom) to somehow take the information out of a list/directoy form, and reintergate it into the main pages of the companies (not a seperate page) so that it meets WP:NOT#DIR. This is a process and I am working with other users (admins) to make this happen so it is fully within the rules. But since I have admin approve (the anon does not), my userpages should not be the subject of deletion. Also, I would have perfered a note on my page immediately after my name was brought up, not several hours later. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? Did I start the ANI about his behavior ? Did I block or unblock him ? Did I start the original AFD ? Did I start the AN about his behavior ? No. I've contributed to be sure. Editors other than myself have expressed delete votes with reasons grounded in policy (WP:NOTDIR, Recreation of a previously deleted page with no change made (That's G4 criteria)

Bottom line, it's not just me versus you and the IP, Sadly it's multiple users (including myself) expressing the same thing with you and the IP defending against. However, if it makes you feel any better, I'll withdraw from any further commenting (but I will keep an eye on this ) untill it's closed. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also the reason I haven't substantially edited the current userfied draft is that I'm waiting for Neutralhomer, who has hit the undo button on eight different good-faith attempts of mine, to come back and work on the content dispute, and I'm being particularly cautious because of my self-disclosed conflict of interest. If another editor would like to propose free rein for me to edit the article now and would like to defend me against potential vandalism or COI or vandalism charges, I would appreciate that. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that is a valid reason for not editing during the AfD. Can you present what your plan is going forward to be able to address the overwhelming consensus that the article fails NOT:DIR - what will the end product look like that will NOT be a directory? because what i see User talk:The "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels#Path forward is merely more of exactly the same directory that got the page deleted in the first place.-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This version is fine since it has the whole history. My reasoning for deleting the other is that that it was a copy vio on a blocked user's talk page, and there was basically zero change of that editor being to use that account again due to it being a user name block. It was a dead end copy vio. This isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for that page also seems to have gone up in smoke. The option was open to them to just create a new name but they wanted attribution for their previous edits and successfully chose a new, non-infringing name. Any chance you might consider withdrawing that nom? I think there has been enough useless drama related to this, what with some users obsessively but ineptly trying to find some sinister motive in every single thing they do, not understanding the rename, moving valid mfd tags from one page to another, and so forth. We can always revist this later. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we discuss ways to reformat the article so that it's not directory at User talk:The "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels#Next path forward. Powergate92Talk 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. BTW- G4 does not apply to userfication of a deleted article. If it did, nothing could ever be userfied. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two reasons. First, admin The Bushranger, who closed the 3 October 2012 AfD, userfied the article per request and that decision becomes part of The Bushranger's AfD close per admin discretion.[1] You first need to overcome The Bushranger's closing decision at DRV before bringing this matter here. (Full disclosure, I iVoted delete in that AfD discussion.) Second, WP:STALEDRAFT gives time for a user to improve on a draft, usually about three months. This userspace draft has been there only since 3 October 2012. Come back 4 January 2013 to MfD if the draft has not made its way to article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTDIR --No unique names 16:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even revising the charts (or reverting the chart back to older version) does violate G4, no matter the prose, and is an insufficent improvement from the former article, which is also the violation of G4. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 12 October 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.