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 Snow Delete. GlassCobra 02:05, 12 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 copy has been created by a single-purpose account whose sole purpose is to promote the subject of the article; no other edits outside of this topic have been made from this account. This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a non-notable individual violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th nomination). It is unlikely that there is a real attempt here to overcome the points made at AfD and to make a suitable article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, it could be kept as a subpage of User:NBeale, as he is an active contributor, if he wanted it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If anyone wants to maintain a bio, they can do it off-wiki, and this one has not been edited for months anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale: 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 someone 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) 02:48, 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 December 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) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As well as the good arguments above, holding a BLP in userspace for extended periods of time without good reason is a bad idea - especially if the user in question is not active to watch for vandalism. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I normally like to wait six months, but given that this has gone to AfD five times, and the last decision was delete and salt, this should go.SPhilbrickT 13:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given in for "User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale" above, though this one is far more iron-clad; an inactive single-purpose account, and a duplicate of the above anyways. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 11 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.