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 all. These pages definitely fall within the purview of WP:STALEDRAFT, which states that 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. Despite the words of the page creator that they intend to keep on working on these pages, none of them have been significantly edited in a long time.

Unlike the delete !votes, which are rooted in policy, the keep ones are not: the best arguments which would justify a keep close have been put forward by Metropolitan90 and are only based on two essays. A different argument is the one put forward by the page creator, who indicates that they intend to keep on working on these pages, but this appears to be disproven by facts.

Finally, another editor proposes moving these pages to the incubator, which is not viable either, in my opinion. These pages were deleted after an AfD and moved to this user's userspace, where they were never edited; I see no point in keeping on moving these pages around. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bech86/Almamy

[edit]
User:Bech86/Almamy No significant edits since July 2010.
User:Bech86/ModyWorks No significant edits since July 2010.
User:Bech86/Vinyl Life No significant edits since December 2009.
User:Bech86/Nite Club No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/SpenceGabor. No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/Jenny Canto No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/Me La Couler Douce No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/My Tronic No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/The Sexy Boy EP /... L.Y.D. No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/The Sexy Boy EP /... B.M.D. No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/Don't Ask Me / French Kiss No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/Like You Do Remixes - EP No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/The Session No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/EP (Nite Club EP) No significant edits since August 2009.
User:Bech86/Nu Nite No significant edits since August 2009.

These articles haven't been actively edited for a period of time much longer than that contemplated by WP:FAKEARTICLE. There remains no evidence that the articles have any chance of meeting notability guidelines. Bongomatic 13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is not supported by the edit frequency. Please see additional information on the articles, above. Bongomatic 00:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike that the prime reason for deletion given in the nomination is not a very good reason on its own. So I wanted to check them all, but suffered a serious internet problem. I’d prefer that the nomination statement systematically detail which pages had been previously deleted at AfD, and link to that AfD. This would make it so much easier to review. I think this review should be taken very seriously, because deleting userspace content against the wishes of an active user is a very serious thing.

    The comments at AfD will probably be highly relevant.

    It looks like “shows no sign of ever meeting our notability requirements” is alleged for all of the pages, yes?

    Are the pages here for promotion? I see that they are already tagged ((noindex)), which greatly diminished their promotional value. What would the user, and others, think of keeping the pages in blanked form during periods of inactivity?

    While the references, which exist, are overall not impressive reliable independent secondary sources, some references might contribute to demonstrating notability, and so this is not an open & shut case. These sources should be examined in context of any previous AfDs.

    Of the pages I have looked at, I think all would be deleted at AfD. But this is not AfD. At this point, I am inclined to say that as the user claims active and continuing interest to develop content, he should be given generous leeway, and at worst, he should keep them blanked while not actively working on them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I, the editor, have not abandoned Wikipedia, I still have an interest in continuing developing these articles. As I said above, these articles are something I am working on, and that is why they are in my userpage. My not being constantly active is not a valid reason to delete them. I should be given the time to develop them at my own pace. I have to say to SchmuckyTheCat that presuming that these articles will never meet criteria is ludicrous, they are in my userspace for the very reason that I am looking for more reliable sources to establish notability. Bech86 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • There was a unanimous consensus in the above AfDs to delete. The topics, which all involve the non-notable ModyWorks, have been proven to fail the notability guidelines. I don't believe that incubation is the correct result here but agree with you that this should be deleted from userspace. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2011 (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.


More