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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Peterborough

User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Peterborough ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted material stored in userspace unedited for over two years. All of these lists have been deleted by overwhelming consensus at numerous Afds. The initial edit summary admits that it was copied here to evade deletion. Charles ( talk) 21:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Also nominated:

• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Eastleigh & Romsey
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Alton, Bordon and Tadley
• User:Adam mugliston/Bus routes in Colchester
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Andover
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Farnborough & Fleet
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Basingstoke
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Huntingdon
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Winchester

• Comment Once again Charles, you have acted very predictably. I just knew that when Adam moved over his created Buses in Ipswich page earlier today that we would see action from you. You removed some content on the page itself and now you have nominated a whole bunch of his old drafts for deletion the very same day. I'm not saying I oppose these nominations (some clearing out did need to be done) but its just the way you do it which is the matter. This could have been done any time, and yet you choose right now to do it. You only look into these things when something stirs it up and reminds you of Adam, like him publishing a page, which you couldn't leave alone. Yes, it's a free wiki, you're following guidelines but think a bit more about your timing. Furthermore, a single nomination of all of these would have done, instead of clogging up the MfD page. I am being kind and grouping them together for you. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 22:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, Since Lists of bus routes in "X" have mostly been removed, Having these stored is now beyond pointless!. -
  →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 20:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep The lists are in my own userspace and are kept there for my own reference and for possible future development into an article with much higher standards and prose. I cannot see any harm in them remaining, as they are not articles readers may easily stumble upon and confuse them.  Adam Mugliston   talk  22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Other than if you google something like "List of bus routes in xxx" where, certainly for some of the articles, it's the first hit. That's potentially a reasonable search term for google users - making it entirely possible that people will stumble upon them from outside the project. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 10:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - these articles would go at AfD straight away given current consensus. They're better off being taken off wiki - there are plenty of spaces to store data on the internets or even on your own machine. It's not difficult to do so. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 10:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict) Delete all - The fact that they are sitting in your userspace does not keep them from deletion. Besides, only one of these lists has been edited any later than July 2011, so they're most definitely stale, added on to the fact that "List of bus routes in X" is pretty much considered unencyclopedic. T C N7JM 10:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - They are in userspace of a user is still active. They are not hurting anything. Kumioko ( talk) 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• A similar copy of a deleted list has been renamed as Buses in Ipswich and is causing huge disruption because its creator insists on keeping the deleted content in the article against consensus. That is why it is better to get rid of these now.-- Charles ( talk) 17:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Ok I understand but to me that's a completely different scenario. As long as they are in user space, they aren't hurting anything. As soon as the user renames it to article space, delete it. Kumioko ( talk) 17:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

AS has been said above these pages can be listed by search engines so they are potentially providing outdated information to the public. The stored information is of no value because it will not be allowed in a mainspace article. Better to write a new article from scratch.-- Charles ( talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)-- Charles ( talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I understand that too but we can't consume ourselves with what is and isn't visible on google. These are clearly under the User namespace so we should not and cannot control what is or isn't being pulled up in google. I hate to sound callous but that's really not our problem. If these were in article space I would totally agree and say delete. But as long as they are in userspace and the editor is active and it doesn't violate any of the policies for what can and can't be in userspace, then its not really an issue. Also, Wikipedia:User pages is pretty clear what can and cannot be in userspace. Kumioko ( talk) 18:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes indeed. Wikipedia:User pages clearly says "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."-- Charles ( talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

You guys are grossly misinterpretting that policy and what is and isn't allowed in userspace but I don't really feel that strongly that this content needs to be kept. There are better fights out there to engage in. I am going to disengage from this discussion now. You have my vote as Keep. The closing admin will need to determine what the consensus is. Kumioko ( talk) 23:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

The issue can be solved very simply by putting a 'This is not a current list of bus routes in xxx'. Problem solved.  Adam Mugliston   talk  22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete all User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Peterborough states: "This is a copy of the real articles, in the case someone deletes it." List of bus routes in Peterborough was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (3rd nomination), where the closer wrote that the page's merge/redirection should be discussed on the talk page. After the page was redirected, it was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 14#Lists of bus routes in East Anglia.

  Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and Wikipedia:User pages#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages, which states (my bolding): "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Cunard ( talk) 02:12, 16 August 2013 (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.