Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hatashe/The Impacts of Drugs on Young Generation of Bangladesh

Add links
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 discussion was Delete. Per both WP:WEBHOST and an apparent copyright violation as it was posted elsewhere first. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hatashe/The Impacts of Drugs on Young Generation of Bangladesh

[edit]

WP:NOT#WEBHOST. This is an assignment, also posted at [1] and [2]. It may be suitable to be {{Copy to Wikiversity}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Worked on recently on WP, it appears. Userspace is valid place to work on articles, even if they might fail AfD. MfD is not the place to judge its future in mainspace. If you feel it is a copyvio, say so. With the changes as recently as November, I doubt that it is. Collect (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User space is not a space for POV. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting claim -- I find almost all users show POV in userspace. Might you show me the policy or guideline which says userspace must be NPOV? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph of WP:USER#Copies_of_other_pages is the best that I can find about this currently. If a user-subpage is intended to be a "draft", it should be progressing towards the mainspace criteria; that could happen if large chunks of it were removed; see Black Falcon's comment belong. It is using Wikipedia as a webhost for a "research article". John Vandenberg (chat) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:COPYVIO apply. This userspace draft was published in December 2008; http://hatashe.blogspot.com/2008/07/impacts-of-drugs-on-young-generation-of.html, which contains the same content, was published in July 2008. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primarily because the content is a copy of a blog post (and is still available there), weak delete unless Hatashe indicates that it is being used in the manner that Collect assumes—if that is the case, then the page ought to be restored. Pages in userspace "should be used as part of [a user's] efforts to contribute to the project" and should not contain "substantial content ... that is unrelated to Wikipedia" (Wikipedia:User page), so I believe it makes sense to evaluate this page in the context of whether it contains content that could be used to write a new article or improve an existing one. Much of the content duplicates information that is already present in Drug abuse and related articles, but there is some content that is specific to the topic of Drug abuse in Bangladesh.
    There is also the issue of copyright. On the blog, Hatashe has indicated that the content is copyrighted; yet, by publishing it in his userspace, he would be releasing the content under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (which is fine if he wants to do that, but perhaps he is not aware of this). –Black Falcon (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete On the blog there is an all rights reserved if the content was meant to be on here either there would be a free license deceleration on the original blog post, or an OTRS ticket for the content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyzweb (talk • contribs) 06:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is a copyright violation. The author posted it to Wikipedia. Confirmation by way of an OTRS ticket would be good, but I think we can be pretty sure that they are the copyright holder, and knew what they were doing when they posted it to Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly if the page were some form of web hosting it would not be acceptable, so let us assume that it is a proposal for an article. Most of the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia (or is a duplication of better-treated material in pages such as Drug abuse); the statistics relating to Bangladesh could conceivably be used somewhere in an article, but as currently presented they are just numbers without significance and would only be suitable for a mention somewhere (they are not the basis for an article). At any rate, the page in question is available in at least two other places, and it serves no encyclopedic purpose here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that material in userspace be used for, or suitable for, a mainspace article. Nor is there a notability requirement for userspace, else 99.9% of all userspace pages should be at MfD <g>. Collect (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no notability requirement, but there is a requirement that material in userspace be Wikipedia-related (not necessarily about Wikipedia per se, but "part of [a user's] efforts to contribute to the project"). From Wikipedia:User page:

    Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. ... Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project.

    This particular user subpage is Wikipedia-related only if it contains material to be used in an article; if it does not, then it is just a copy of an essay that was previously published on a blog. –Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making statements which do not follow how many other MfDs have been argued -- in fact, Jimbo's userspace is full of non-utile pages -- I commend you to bring them all up for MfD <g>. As I said before, if there is a copyvio, then proceed with showing that it is a copyvio. If it is not a copyvio, it certainly appears to me to validly belong in userspace. Collect (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in trawling userspace for pages to nominate for deletion, but I certainly won't fault anyone who is willing to do that in accordance with established policy (WP:NOT) and guideline (WP:USER).
    As for the part about "making statements which do not follow how many other MfDs have been argued", I think it's necessary to clarify to which part of my comment you were referring: the quote from Wikipedia:User page or my application of it to this particular page. The first part, the quote from WP:USER, is valid in every MfD; the second part, the interpretation of its relevance to a particular user page, should and does vary from case to case.
    Wikipedia:User page provides general guidance about what type of content is and is not acceptable in userspace, but its existence does not replace the need for case-by-case evaluation. I am sure that most editors would agree that an attempt to delete any page or sentence in userspace that is not related to Wikipedia would be highly counterproductive; likewise, I am confident that most editors would agree that "copyright violation" or "illegal" should not be the only criteria by which to judge whether content in userspace is appropriate. As I indicated above, I support keeping the page if Hatashe offers any indication that there is even a slight connection between the content of this page and the encyclopedia project.
    I am not entirely comfortable concluding that this page is a copyright violation without first reading Hatashe's thoughts on the matter. My comment about copyright was intended to highlight the apparent inconsistency between the user's desire to have the content copyrighted on one website (©2000-2010) and release it under the GFDL and CC-by-SA-3.0 on another. (Apologies to Johnuniq for hijacking this thread.) –Black Falcon (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MfD does not generally require formulaic statements at the top of userpages saying "I am using this in some way to further the project." Therefore, I think requiring it seem non-utile. I do recognize copyvio as being a valid reason for deletion - but no one has made an affirmative statement of that. Having looked at quite a few hendred MfDs now gives me some confidence in averring this. Collect (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am not suggesting that we require such statements on user pages; what I am suggesting is that it is appropriate to indicate whether one is using a page in a particular manner when one is asked. A glance at Hatashe's contributions history reveals that he sometimes has gaps of several weeks between his editing, so I do not expect that he will be able to offer clarification during the course of this MfD, which I why I expressed support for restoring the page (that is, if it is deleted) if Hatashe indicates that it is being used for article development. –Black Falcon (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2010 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Hatashe/The_Impacts_of_Drugs_on_Young_Generation_of_Bangladesh&oldid=1078950196"