- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was No consensus. The move-to-mainspace arguments were cogent, but are superceded by the undeletion of history in the mainspace article. What remains then are the arguments for keeping because of the commentary and deleting because favorite versions of articles should not be kept in userspace. IronGargoyle 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic. Speedy-deletion candidate userfied in March 2005 and essentially untouched since May 2005 -- two years ago. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute or permanent home for not-ready-for-primetime articles. PROD tag added, but removed by creator with the comment "Stay the hell off my user pages please. Thanks." Calton | Talk 08:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to mainspace and discuss on either DRV or AFD. It's an article, yes? It belongs either in mainspace or in /dev/null. >Radiant< 08:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like an article about an inherently notable band, and some saved up commentary. This was deleted? If it can be sourced, it should be an article. If not, I see no reason to delete it - perhaps Kappa has use for it as an example of something? I give strong contributors a wide berth in keeping what they wish in their user space. So keep. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per bd2412 somments above. This looks like it would meet notability criteria for a band. If not, I see no harm having it in Userspace, as Kappa may have it there for a reason. —Gaff ταλκ 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral If Kappa would speak up here it would be helpful. Why is this page a keeper? Seems like it may be only a copy of a mainspace article, in which case is an obvious delete. If Kappa remains reticent, the I vote delete.
- Move to mainspace- I agree with >Radiant<. The article should be discussed for deletion in the proper area. It doesnt matter if the user has the article there for a reason or not, its not their own userspace to do whatever they want. No edits in 2 years I feel removes the quality of work in progress and moves it closer to forgotten waste of space. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's vastly outdated by the current article at Kaaos and is merely an artifact of the deletion outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaaos. No need to try to merge it with the current article, Kappa is welcome to work on that one in the mainspace. -- nae'blis 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the deleted version appears to be at least partly used in the current article, I've undeleted the edits that were deleted as a result of the AFD. With all the attribution restored, there's no more reason to keep a copy of the material as it's now available in the article history. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The top 1/3 or so of the page is commentary, not article content. If Kappa has a reason to save that, we have no reason to delete it. bd2412 T 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.