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. The general consensus of the discussion below is that a page on this subject does not belong in any namespace given the consistent AfD decision to delete. Therefore, I cannot restore the better version (yes, there is one), but if desired, I can email a copy of the deleted article. Tim Song (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the userspace draft of Nicholas Beale which has been taken to AfD five times, and deleted all five times. WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space 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." (mine emphasized)

This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a non-notable individual violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. It has not been hosted indefinitely. Nor is that the intention. Nor has nom expressed evidence that that is the intention. It is an article that has been received a measure of support at AfDs, the person is a living person who can be expected to generate more RS coverage, and it is therefore precisely the sort of page that is appropriate in userspace. Nom may be a bit too emotionally involved with this page and its subject, as he left me a message regarding this page, and then left me a snarky message that I had failed to respond to him (within a 15-minute period). I offer him a cup of tea ... with a pill that is chilled.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The page is being hosted indefinitely because there is no indication that the subject will become notable.

  I take your criticism into account and will modify my editing style accordingly. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the consensus of the past five AfDs indicates that this individual will never meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for an article unless something major changes in the world (i.e., if he does something to be famous). If Epeefleche wants the article ready for when that happens, he can always keep a copy of it on his hard drive. But since there is no chance of this making it to article space as things stand now, I don't see what the use of having it on WP is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually -- is this the latest version? I think not. If not, can you please delete this and restore the latest version, that I had worked on, which is far superior? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The wikitext can easily be held locally (i.e. by any user), and even if deleted is still available upon request. There has been no work on the page since October 2, 2009. Since the original article has been deleted five times, often with lengthy and heated debates, it is not helpful to keep this version. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per respect due to User:Epeefleche, but suggest that given the history here that the draft be kept in a blanked form during long periods of inactivity. It is perfectly reasonable to aspire to find new sources that will change the facts, but it could be a long time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The inactivity since the content was userfied indicates that there is little anticipation of the subject becoming notable in the near future, and the existing content has failed to establish notability in the past. The text can be stored elsewhere, and the article resurrected when something happens that establishes notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there is also a (much better) copy of this at User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale, which has also been nominated for deletion. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no work has been done on the article to make it meet our inclusion policies, and the fact that it has been deleted so many times makes it unlikely it ever will. Userspace shouldn't be used to circumvent AFD consensus indefinitely. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does not appear to violate any policies, and again I consider 5 months in userspace not to reach "indefinite". Note also that userspace does not have a "notability" requirement. Collect (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This is one of the exceptions to my personal six month rule – after multiple failures at AfD, with a most recent decision to delete and salt, the community has clearly stated this isn’t acceptable, and doesn’t appear likely to be acceptable. That is, it isn’t simply a case that better writing or more diligent searching for RS will rescue this. (Obviously, new real-life events or a community change in notability thresholds would be a different story, but we should maintain a salted article simply because that could happen.)SPhilbrickT 13:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No. The creator is just keeping it around on the vague hope that the subject will someday gain sufficient notability, i.e. "the person is a living person who can be expected to generate more RS coverage". That is not deserving the usual respect of normal userspace/sandbox considerations. There is precedent for deleting hopeless material from userspace, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale. This situation has caused a lot of upheaval, and it's been decided five times at AfD that the article should be deleted. I think any existing version of it should be kept off-wiki. No disrespect is intended toward Epeefleche, who is acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As Rjanag has not responded to my above comment, I'll make it to any admin on or visiting this page. The page people are discussing is clearly the wrong page, as I recall creating a later, far superior version of that, with many refs. I ask that that page be restored and put on my user page. Once that is put on my user page, this earlier version of course can be deleted. And of course, at the appropriate time, anyone can nom that for deletion if so impelled. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as stated by the nom. An inactive page containing disputed and repeatedly deleted content. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 06:38, 12 May 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.