Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dwain/Republican Celebrities Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep Unlike a normal article, the reasons for prohibiting long term archiving of deleted articles are not present in lists, a list is much more likely to be used for valid collaborative purposes in userspace. (Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Markaci/Nudity_(3rd_nomination) for a list nominated on other grounds) This page has none of the ordinary aspects of a personal webpage. Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dwain/Republican Celebrities Page

Somewhere between free web hosting and inappropriate advocacy. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Excessive use of userspace for things not related to the encyclopedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:50, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • Any page featuring Ann Coulter has got to be awesome. And I was also pleased to learn that one of the stars of one of the greatest TV series ever made is a sound conservative. :-) In seriousness, though, keep for now, and ask the user what he plans to do with the page. If it's material for an article, then keep it (seeing as it's all sourced, and must have taken ages to compile); if it's just for decoration, then I have no opinion. (Though I don't see that it constitutes inappropriate advocacy; it's simply a list of celebrities who've donated money to Republicans or identify as Republican. And, per my reasoning in Wikipedia:Editors matter, I don't really see that it needs to be deleted even if it is purely decorative. Since it's sourced, there are no BLP issues.) WaltonOne 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep User:JzG seems to be on some sort of crusade against conservative/libertarian users. He just deleted an article on my own userpage, which I had kept as a backup to work on a new artticle, without any reason or without even asking me before. Now he refuses to restore it which I find very disturbing to say the least. /Slarre (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strike the ad-hominem argument above. Delete per nom.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • After looking at this again, I don't see how this can particularly harm the userspace, let alone the mainspace. If anything it should be a benefit to the encyclopedia. This is not advocacy as it does not propose an opinion in spite of the title, and "free web hosting" only applies to MySpace-ish content and POV forks. Keep per Walton One.--WaltCip (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Walton One. --Bduke (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Exorbitantly long procedural/historical comment I'd likely support keeping even if this page didn't exist toward any specific encyclopedic end, but if it is to be used as (and adjudged in the context of its use as) a, it is probably worth noting that there is a rather significant procedural history underlying this and similar pages. Once situated in mainspace were List of Republican celebrities and List of Democratic celebrities; each survived a VfD (here and here respectively; the arguments for deletion advanced were not identical and might have been in part applicable to one specific article, but the substantive debate focused each time primarily on whether "List of XX celebrities" articles might, at least in some form, be appropriate for inclusion) but was ultimately deleted consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party, which incorporated by reference the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities with links to the Conservative Party of Canada. The content of each was userfied to MisfitToys in order that he might, under a strict construction of "links" and with precise sourcing, attempt to address certain of the concerns that were raised at AfD; each (including the Republican list, which is nearly identical to that of the instant page) remains in his userspace (which is, of course, altogether fine). In the meanwhile, List of Hollywood Republicans was created, including many entries found also the deleted article and from List of Republican celebrities of the past (which was itself deleted and which now exists in userspace, ostensibly in order that it too might be improved and taken to DRV); the article was kept after a rather complex AfD, in part, one supposes, because "Hollywood Republicans" was understood as a more restrictive and more significant (the intersection of Hollywood and politics is explored in many secondary sources, as in the phenomenon of the rare "Hollywood Republican") classification than was "celebrities with links to the Republican party". If, then, this page is not intended only to host content that is not destined for the encyclopedia (were it, again, I'd likely have no objection, per the inestimable Walton), interested editors might want to attempt to merge the content found in User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party, User:Kestenbaum/List of Republican celebrities of the past, and the page at issue here (there exist a good many sourced entries each present in all three). Joe 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Walton One. -- Comandante {Talk} 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see how this violates BLP, or WP:NOT#HOST. This is actually sort of interesting. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)~
  • Delete, this should be a category Ha! You hadn't thought of this, eh? This sort of lists are unmaintaneable as they become longer and longer and get more and more vandal and POV additions and become just a time sink, so it needs to be a category. Also, see essay WP:Listcruft, which saves me from having to explain how lists violate wikipedia policies and are unmaintainable --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Walton One. Dwain (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all ones like it (regardless of party), as indefinite storage of deleted content in violation of our userpage guidelines (as quoted by Enric below), "not intended to indefinitely archive... previously deleted content.". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] article already debated and deleted
  • Userfied article that is past due date See this edit from June 2006 "(moved List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party to User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party: userfying AFD'ed content for data retrieval)" [1]. User has had enough time for data retrieval, I think. See the deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_celebrities_with_links_to_the_U.S._Democratic_Party that Joe already linked but nobody read because of long comment (closing admin, go read Joe's comment), it even has a sockpuppet --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] similar pages
  • Comment These also probably need to follow the same destiny as nominated article or be merged together:


--Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep No policy or guideline violation, no need to put a time limit on how long we can use our userspace as references for past content. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
violation of WP:USER guideline, he asked 27 months ago on January 2006 to userfy the page for data retrieval of a deleted article, and it has since become an active article copied on several userspaces. I quote "this space (subpages in this case) is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host.". These pages need to be integrated back on the encyclopedia or deleted. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#WEBHOST is talking about putting stuff up that isn't Wikipedia-related. We've actually done this kind of thing for WikiProjects in the past, were we had a list of something that wasn't appropriate in the article space, but made a nice work list for a project to find articles to work on. As long as it has meta-space value, I see no reason to be upset about this, and endorse its existence. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep its kind of a dumb page, but I can't think of any guidelines it violates or indirect ways in which Wikipedia can be harmed by it (except perhaps promoting the Republican party ... just kidding!).  ;-) --GHcool (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesnt resemble most pages on personal web sites, and neither is it advocacy to have a list of republicans. One could look at it as a call to celebrate their deserved prominence or to do something about their undue dominance--it cuts both ways. DGG (talk) 23:55, 27 April 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.