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 debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox[edit]

Requesting deletion per Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages; You cannot host your version of disputed or previously deleted content because WP is not a free web host. Origional article (Intellect books and journals) was created by this WP:SPA account (Melaniesharrison (talk · contribs), with no other edits other than related to promoting intellectbooks.co.uk. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#G11. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion masquarading in the "sandbox" of a user who sole contributions consist of promoting intellectbooks.co.uk and related, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject looks potentially notable. It's not doing any harm in userspace, why not ~~AGF and~~ let the user flesh it out a bit? I agree that the linkspamming is bad, but let's see what they can do with the article. GlassCobra 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AGF? Not when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Read on Melaniesharrison's talk page. This users editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote intellectbooks.co.uk. his/her contributions to wikipedia under Melaniesharrison and IP 81.149.59.110, consist entirely of adding external links to intellectbooks.co.uk and creating this spam article. Looking through his/her contributions as a whole, the all seem to be intellectbooks.co.uk related only. The account and IP are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand. AGF wasn't the best way to state this, I apologize. However, I feel that we should give this user a chance to write the article; as I said, the subject seems potentially notable. As long as the spamming does not continue, I'd say this user ought to be allowed to keep working. GlassCobra 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Admin The Rambling Man restored this deleted article into this sandbox he created to allow the editor to work on the article. In this case, as the editor has been advised against spamming with respect to Intellect books — and continues to do so, recently adding to Documentary film an as-yet-to-be-released (2008) book by McLaughlin and Pearce, published by Intellect books; and to Independent film and 2008 book by Berra. The editor should be allowed to copy the article and work on it on her own computer; not allow it to remain. — ERcheck (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy Keep, pending return of User:The Rambling Man. TRM is on wikibreak for a few weeks. I'd not want to see this MfD conclude deletion is appropriate without his input, as he's the one who's been liaising with this user. This particular page is in userspace, so there's no great urgency and far less concern about promotion. Close the MfD as a temporary keep and notify TRM. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy Keep. User:The Rambling Man has taken on mentoring this user and given her the opportunity to revise this article up to standard. While she appears to have continued in her spamming ways, TRD should be given the chance to liase with her to try to resolve it. The resolution may be a user block rather than messing with a sandbox, but TRD should be involved. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too soon to judge; TRM just userfied it 11 days ago and user edited it 4 days ago. Since TRM has gone this far to assume good faith, I think we should let it sit for a reasonable amount of time. TRM can speedy (unless that is prohibited) if he deems he overestimated the good faith. (Although, my gut says Hu12 is ultimately correct. If this is renominated in 4–6 weeks or so, and nothing has changed, then I would delete.)--12 Noon ^2¢ 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, note to closing admin, if it's not substantially improved in the interim, I agree with the last sentence. --Dweller (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 12 Noon and Dweller. It's actively being worked on and seems like it could make a viable article. If it goes the other way, then we should wait on The Rambling Man before we pull the plug. --jonny-m t 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per me. I know it's unfortunate timing with me being away for three weeks but I did, as noted above, do a certain amount of assuming of good faith here. Has anyone tried to contact the user in question to see if the sandbox is going to be developed further? If so and nothing then I'd re-consider but dumping WP:N and WP:CORP on, what I believe to be, a good faith editor may need some gentle guidance. If it's still there and no change a couple of weeks, and we've tried to make contact with Ms Harrison and got nowhere then, sure, speedy it. I'll even request it, as I said at the relevant WP:DRV (which I can't look up easily because the keyboards here in Laos are dodgy to say the least and this lot took a good ten minutes to type...) The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 December, the editor, while logged in, added more Intellect books spam. Notes were left on her talk page. Then today, using the IP address (81.149.59.110) that she has used earlier, added the same books back. While WP:AGF is in play, she does not seem to be taking the advice and warnings seriously and has made not attempt to improve the article. As I suggested earlier, my thought is that she should take the page and edit in her own space. — ERcheck (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is doing. It's in user space, not main space. There's no rush to deal with userspace issues that aren't offensive or otherwise egregious. --Dweller (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the main reason I would assume good faith in this instance is because the topic (appears) to meet notability requirements and could result in a respectable article; with that being said, we still need to worry about conflict of interest issues as with the spamming. I left her a COI message on her talk page. If the user cannot edit WP neutrally and gets blocked, then this article (and user subpage) would be collateral damage as well. In that case, I would lean delete, but not yet.--12 Noon ^2¢ 22:06, 19 December 2007 (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.