The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close, without prejudice, by nominator. See discussion. Dweller (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maree Sole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I speedied this article in April, before userfying by request. Since then, user has added a couple of sources. It's been in userspace long enough, really, so I've moved it back into mainspace and AfDd it. Sure it's fancrufty, but do the notability claims stand up - are there multiple non trivial references in RS? Dweller (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the article makes no attempt to assert the notability of the subject, and is bereft of sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based solely on current content. Suggest user copy/paste into a word processor and brings it up to snuff (notability, verifiably, and NPOV) before bringing back in main or user space. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep. I'm not really comfortable with the way this was handled, although to the nom's credit s/he's been quite transparent. On the merits this article is a delete, however, it seems that the author understood that it wasn't ready for mainspace. For the nom to move the article into mainspace and Afd it emphasizes the current (inadequate) state of the article, when really the emphasis should be on whether it has remained userfied for too long. That argument should be rasied at MfD, not here, and in my experience they are reasonably tolerant of articles being worked on, even slowly, it userspace. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, and there I was thinking I was being kind by not speedying it again ;-) The user's had two months to work on it, but perhaps you're right and I should have left it in userspace and MfDd it. I'm happy to speedy close this AfD, move the article and then MfD if you like? --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me. Two months is a long time, but there are plenty of articles I've been "planning to get to" for longer than that. Kudos for being so responsive :+) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see no need to call another admin to close this - I'll do it myself. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.