Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet occupation

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. If he wants it back when he returns from his ban then this can be looked at again, but until then it's not needed. Wizardman 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet occupation

Main article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation; deletion subsequently endorsed; user has been banned from editing Wikipedia; no need to keep this around Relata refero (disp.) 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment DRV is here (last one on the list). There are similar articles at
  • User:Digwuren/Denial_of_Soviet_crimes, and its talk page User_talk:Digwuren/Denial_of_Soviet_crimes (this article underwent reestructuring until 27 May 2007, when work stopped, and only a pair of sources were added, I'm unsure whether this article should also be deleted, or if it's a work in progress to get a less POV version all changes were done after the deletion of a re-written version, I assume this page was the base for that re-write. It didn't solve the POV problems and can most probably get deleted too)
  • User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet_occupation_denialism (copy of original talk page, as seen here, it has been copied on talk page above) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all copies. They were all shot down at either AfD or DRV for being a WP:POVFORK and containing WP:POV, original research and synthesis. Both AfD and DRV leave clear that the improved copies still have the same problems as the original article. In particular, the article was still doing WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, trying to make unwarranted and unsourced associations of Holocaust Denial with denial of crimes during Soviet occupation. The article has not been improved since the DRV, so no hopes for a rewrite. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, this article is never going anywhere (as are 90% of the "historical wrong against my nation denial" articles.) <eleland/talkedits> 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Gah, thats a bad page. MBisanz ^talk 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Wow! Horrible pages. POV, OR, soapboxing etc etc. Delete. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. All these rules only apply to articles in main space. This user was temporarily blocked, and he may be willing to improve this article in his user space when he comes back.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Since when does WP:POVFORK, WP:POV, original research or synthesis apply to user space? Obviously it was work in progress to re-write the article, and bears no resemblance to the original deleted mainspace article, as I recall it. The only reasonable grounds to delete in this case is inactivity, since Wikipedia is not intended as a permanent archive of userspace pages. However Digwuren was not permanently banned, in fact his ban expires in 5 months time. Banned editors are not permitted to edit their userspace. Kind of harsh to tell the guy he can't edit, and then delete his user pages because he's not editing them. Extend him the courtesy of permitting him to delete it himself if he so chooses. When his ban lifts and it continues to sit idle, that's a different story. Martintg (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Marting. Let's wait till Digwuren's back and can defend his own userspace.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Work in progress, misguided or otherwise, belongs in userspace. Persuade the user to give up on it by all means, but it is his decision in his workspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think that the commenters above are having a problem with WP:OWN. Basically, Wikipedia:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space states "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community: (...) in some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users". So, this user does not need to defend "his" userspace, since all userspace pages belong to the community, and tha page can be undeled *if* he wants it back. And I'm not attacking him, I'm just saying to delete a page that no longer furthers the goals of this project. The page has not been worked on for a long time and the user is not going to be able to edit again on a few months. If the user still wants to work on this draft to improve a deleted page *then* he can ask for undeletion as soon as the ban ends. Actually, if you want to work on the draft, you can say so here, then move the draft to your userspace and work on the draft. As it stands, nobody is working on the draft, so this is not "A work in progress, until it is ready to be released", which is an acceptable use listed on Wikipedia:USER#What_about_user_subpages.3F. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Also, if you think that this draft is ready for moving to the mainspace, then please say so, since we can move it to the mainspace and inmediately put it up on Articles for Deletion so it gets evaluated by the community. Please consider the alternatives, consider that this is not a personal attack against a user, and consider that the page is not irreversibly lost. It's just deleted so it's not a visible part of the project since it's an abandoned draft. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you can say that the page does not further the goals of the project, it is clearly an unfinished draft of an encyclopedic article, not something else like a personal blog or page advertising some product, which clearly would be contrary to the goals of the project. And if you say that he can simply request the page back when he returns, why take it away in the first place. There are no issues of WP:OWN here, but clearly since he is tri-lingual estonian/english/russian, he may have access to sources that you or I don't have. The issue here is of WP:AGF. Let us assume that he intends to develop this article in good faith when he returns, and let him decide to delete it or not. Martintg (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Marting and Piotrus. This is user space. Let's be civil with regard to a user who was temporarily banned. The content and talk pages of both articles can be used to make something different and better. I can not understand this urge to delete.Biophys (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(it's because there is no guarantee that the user will return, or that he will ever edit the page again, and the page is unacceptable on its current state. There is no user right now that wants to take into improving it. It's not a question of civility, IMHO) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've previously been in contact with Digwuren and I'm certain he will be back. Note that the deletion review only narrowly endorsed deletion and indicated there was a clear consensus that the Russian government's position is worth covering and the controversy is also worth covering, just there were issues of POV and OR that needed to be worked on first. While the present page is not acceptable for mainspace, the standards of mainspace are not applicable to userspace. The reason others haven't worked on it is because we are all busy with our particular topics of interest. Martintg (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Useless article, and one that is factually wrong, I tried to correct an obvous error, and got immediately reverted. --Kuban Cossack 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with the page in question and more to do with an IP who is following User:Kuban kazak around and reverting any edit he does [1]. Martintg (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because the user is banned until 21 October and cannot reasonably defend the page at this time. If he fails to make any improvements by, say, 1 December, by all means reassess, but deletion would be premature at the moment. Biruitorul (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I had a copy of this page in my userspace, and I was working on it off line: User:Dc76/project2. It was kindly restored to my uesrspace by the admin (User:Moreschi, if I am not mistaken) who closed the discussion when the article was ruled "delete" some months ago. He told me it was alright to work on it in my userspace. Given that I had to read a lot of stuff to improve the page, I decided that I first need to gather more information/links, check and copy that info in my computer and work there before I modify the existing version. So, I did not make any change in User:Dc76/project2, because I still had information to assimilate (read, understand, write sketches). Unfortunately, one month ago User:Dc76/project2 was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) with comment "(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Abandoned userfied content)". The only way to find the log to this action is to look at this user deletion log on 17 April 2008, 22:25. I kindly asked him to restore this page. He kindly answered that WP can not host forks of content. [2] My vote here is motivated as follows: it would be nice if people could work on controversial articles in one place in someone's userspace. Otherwise, it encourages people to recreate the same page and work on it separately or in small groups. Which is worse, forbidding to work on something like that in the view of everyone implicitly encourages people to cooperate off wiki to edit it outside the view of the community. I don't think we want to move in this direction. Dc76\^talk 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Using material from a deleted page to create continuing content anywhere is not allowed under the GFDL without special care to provide attribution to the original authors. If there is any good faith effort to work with this, and it is not kept, it should be userfied. Also note that there are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 16 May 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.