Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/User:AI/Touretzky quotes

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:AI/Touretzky quotes

This is an unusual VFD because it concerns a sub-page in User space. On the above user page, AI (talk · contribs), who has been very vocal recently on the David S. Touretzky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article, has posted a collection of "quotes" ascribed to Touretzky. He also tried to include certain "quotes" into the article on Touretzky, which met with opposition from other editors. The nature, origin, and content of those "quotes" is extremely problematic (they are supposedly based on chat logs) and may expose the project to charges of libel (see Wikipedia:Libel for further background). At this moment, I would not exclude the possibility that AI created this page specifically for the purpose of creating a legal liability for Wikipedia. I recommend that the page be permanently deleted. --MarkSweep 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

(Note MarkSweep's action, attitude and repeated attempts to enforce his opinions about Wikipedia and it's policies upon another user's unbiased perception of reality. --AI 04:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. --MarkSweep 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It has been attributed. Religious Freedom Watch [1] is a notable critic of David Touretzky. --AI 23:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • RFW is at most a secondary source, and not a particularly neutral or even credible one at that. But that is beside the point. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --MarkSweep 00:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • This was only a temporary page, it does need to be VfD'd. All you had to do was show me that reference about indiscriminate collections of information and I would have deleted it. --AI 01:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Wonderful. In that case, you'll have to insert a deletion notice like, for example, {{deletebecause|user requesting deletion of personal subpage}} at the top of the page. An administrator will then review the request and delete it. --MarkSweep 02:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry but I will not delete this page yet, because it is part of the evidence in the arbitration. --AI 18:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Not a worry - the arbitrators can all view deleted pages. Snowspinner 18:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "at most". Why do you have to qualify everything with POV descriptions? It is a secondary source. I disagree with your opinion about credibility. WP:NOR However I will still delete this page because I have no use for it. I will be bringing this information back into my user pages temporarily in the future when I have a need. --AI 18:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I would have recommended bringing this up over at RfC instead of here. I don't think that VfD should be used for user space pages; those are either speedily deletable, or in questionable cases should be reviewed as a question about user conduct, which is the purview of RfC, and eventually the ArbCom. As to the libel issue: I know Dave T.; there's no risk he'll sue Wikipedia for libel. I recommend that this VfD be aborted as this is definitely the wrong forum. Kelly Martin 18:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC), revised 18:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC), revised 18:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Keep the debates confined to the articles themselves and don't try to delete someone's user pages because you don't like the user. I don't see any reason to believe that there is any kind of real legal risk associated with him having them on a user page either. --malathion ^talk 18:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't think User pages should be VfDed, I don't buy the 'it could be a liability' argument, the user has stated that the page is 'temporary', I really don't see that this is needed. -- Joolz 18:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course - User pages are sacrosanct! — flamingspinach | (talk) 18:39:58, 2005-07-23 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. A waste of VfD resources. --Golbez 18:44, July 23, 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.