Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/Sandbox/AAEVP

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 @harej 00:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Perfectblue97/Sandbox/AAEVP

Violation of terms of use. This is an article which was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena. User kept it as a "sandbox", but instead is just using it to circumvent deletion consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid sandbox usage. Not confusable with mainspace articles. And the dang topic may be notable [1], [2], etc. meaning an old AfD might not be duplicated today. The page is nonindexed in any case. Collect (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is hidden in userspace in defiance of the third criterion of this of guideline, this guideline, and criterion 4 for CSD. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the fact that major discussions about policy involved hiding all userpages? Seems that trying to invoke Catch-22 is improper here. " Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. " could be misinterpreted to diasallow any userfied material at all ab initio. Do you feel userfication should be barred? Your second guideline refers to permanent archiving of material. I found no links to this article from mainspace, making that part inapt. Cite for saying that all userpages must be indexed? Collect (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note the deletion discussion focused on Notability. Not on the topic being improper. Collect (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what your point is. I think it's fairly clear that what we have here is an article which the community agreed to delete being kept in userspace in defiance of that consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What? Collect, you just said here that you think three years is way too long for an unchanged draft to be languishing in userspace. And now you're arguing to keep a userspace draft that hasn't been edited since May 2007, by a user who hasn't edited since July 2008. Seriously? How can you reconcile those two viewpoints? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see no evidence for how the user is "using it", let alone why. If there is no intention to try to bring the article up to standard, or to reuse the information somehow, then the user should be asked to blank it, at least. There is nothing wrong with keeping records of your AfD'ed work in the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's only a proposal, but WP:RPDA should be considered. What's the point of deletion if we just let people recreate the content that was conceded to be in violation in their personal userspace? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that we will agree that the page can't stay as it is indefinitely, but I comment because I think you overstate the users purpose in keeping the page. I like to think that he meant well, but has forgotten about it. I advocate blanking such pages as a step before bringing them here for a community debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SUB, and because this is a form of gaming the system. Also per my comments to Collect above; this "draft" hasn't been edited since May 2007 and its creator hasn't edited at all since July 2008. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move WP:FAKEARTICLE. If Collect thinks this subject may be notable today when it was not notable when deleted he can be bold and move the article in the main project. User pages still belong to the community so if that is the right outcome then he should own it and do it. This user is no longer around. Miami33139 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2009 (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.