Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BeenChanged/Reds-Cardinals rivalry (unfinished)
- 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 no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. I am covering it with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} as an editorial decision, not part of this close, which may be challenged per WP:BRD as usual. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Page dumped in userspace. Mainspace title is protected. Legacypac (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Dumped" is inaccurate and disrespectful to the page mover, User:Moonriddengirl. Onus should be on the nominator to provide the reasons for deletion in the deletion rationale, which he has not done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was placed in userspace and not improved. It is unclear what the problem is but it must be serious enough to SALT the title. So what do we do here? I say delete. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- You should mention and link the AfD discussion, and point out that it is long unimproved userfied deleted content. "Dumped" is a very poor summary of the interactions between User:Moonriddengirl and User:BeenChanged at that time, and is irrelevant anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was placed in userspace and not improved. It is unclear what the problem is but it must be serious enough to SALT the title. So what do we do here? I say delete. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not inherently problematic for userspace. Blank due to small concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Don't delete, because (1) it is reasonable use of userspace by a productive Wikipedian, and (2) it contains sourced content that may be used in mainspace, although not in a standalone article as emphatically decided at AfD. Past WP:RECENTISM is worth a review, an excellent argument to RECENTISM is to put it aside to wait for sources to develop. As the user is on a break, and the material is not current, {{Inactive userpage blanked}} is the tag to use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't see any reason to delete a userspace article. Is there an AFD for the original article? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reds–Cardinals_rivalry where it was deleted. Later it was resurrected to merge in some copyvio. It's hard to tell exactly but it looks like the admin did not quite finish whatever they were attempting to do. However, the title was protected [1] so only admins can create it. So I don't know but why do we have a deleted article stuck in userspace of a long gone editor who did not put it there, under a title that we can't use? Why not delete it again? Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It was deleted in mainspace in 2011. It was then moved here under the assumption that it would be worked on. What value is there in keeping it still? In the hope that in another five years, someone else will work on this? The editor hasn't even been here in three years so that's even less likely. If anyone actively here is interesting in taking this one, that's all good and well but until there, there's no point in keeping around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2016 (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.