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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikifan12345/James G. Lindsay[edit]

Old userspace copy of article deleted in mid 2009 via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay. Rd232 ^talk 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALEDRAFT. Rd232 ^talk 01:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article was recently deleted so it is better to work on in userspace then recreating (even though it looks like someone did recreate it). No cats on it plus there is ongoing discussion and presumably work. See Talk:James G. Lindsay#Writing an article Cptnono (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? The page has been a redirect since 29 April 2009, until 25 November 2010 when a different user started drafting a different article from scratch, though without really escaping the AFD issues. This is irrelevant to this MFD. PS If you consider April 2009 to be "recent", I've got some cheese in the back of my fridge you may be interested in... ;) Rd232 ^talk 01:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my god I need a sandwich now. Recent recreation of the article shows a renewed interest. If editors are going to work on it it should not be done in the mainspace. I suppose it could be done in MSWord but we have the userfication process for a reason and if there is some attempt to continue working on it I see no reason to remove it. This is especially true since another editor now thinks he can pull it off. But if neither of them are working on it over the next week or so I say go for deletion then.Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other editor was unaware of the existence of this page and isn't working on it. If they want it userfied to their userspace to work on, fine, though I doubt it'll help any in overcoming the WP:CSD#G4 issues. I'd already offered to email them the deleted version of the article, when it was pointed out that this stale draft existed, so I MFD'd it. Rd232 ^talk 01:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was my mistake on the timeline. I thought it was just created for the third time not the second from misreading some comments. Regardless, the article in the mainspace is about to be speedy deleted so it can then be worked on in the userspace. Wikifan has already made it clear that ti was available to work on. So after the speedy deletion goes through (assuming it does) it seems acceptable to have this available for the editors. Like I said, if they do not work on it within a week then go for it. As it is now, it appears to be a deletion based on principle that is going to just cause more work when the editors request userfication again.Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I reverted the page back to a redirect. The content remains in the history for interested editors who wish to use the material. This stale draft can be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:STALEDRAFT states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."

  Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:STALEDRAFT, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One year and seven months is more than enough leeway for a stale draft. No improvements have been made to this page since April 2009. That James G. Lindsay was recently recreated has no bearing on the fact that this page violates WP:STALEDRAFT. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Perhaps resubmit article? Lindsay has been cited in several mainstream sources and sites, including: 1, 2, 3,spectator, pressure group 1, cited in congressional document, tom gross. I don't exactly remember the original discussion, but the whole issue was whether or not Lindsay is notable beyond his evaluation of the UNRWA in a single report. Obviously Lindsay is most known for his employment by the UNRWA, but the significant news coverage suggest the individual is notable. He has been cited for other general issues pertaining to the UNRWA. I think there is more than enough sources to meet basic notability guidelines. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete. I note in looking into the history, that merging of content was performed prior to deletion of the mainspace article. I think that the history should be undeleted, to maintain best practice of WP:Copyright compliance, noting WP:MAD. I have notified the deleting admin, Sandstein (talk · contribs). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored the history and protected the redirect at James G. Lindsay. Restoring it as an article would need a WP:DRV discussion.  Sandstein  06:20, 26 November 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.