Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:0xd34df00d/LeechCraft




 * 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  IAR delete. The user was inactive for almost a year prior to being recruited to stack votes in an AfD. So this page can be deleted on two counts. Users who don't actively contribute to articlespace don't need userpages, and meatpuppets (like sockpuppets) do not have the same rights as legitimate users. Blueboy96 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:0xd34df00d/LeechCraft
Article has been in user space for years, and the user is active. User space is not an end run around WP:N. Pcap ping  19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's notable though that this draft was placed for deletion when I suggested keeping the dwm article. Makes me think like the Wikipedia, designed with openness in mind and with opensource instruments becomes clearly against opensource software. Another notable thing is that your parents waited for at least a decade for you to become something and nobody deleted you for not having any reliable sources. 0xd34df00d (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, since if I move it now to the global space you would immediately delete it with "no notable sources" reason. I'm letting the software to become notable. 0xd34df00d (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After all, it's not a work-around WP:N. Try to find any references to this page worldwide or on Wikipedia. Look at much more sophisticated application's web site. Maybe these two will prove you that the article just waits until any reliable source would be available, since some effort has been put in it anyway. 0xd34df00d (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. User space is not a means of circumventing the article-space restrictions on notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So what would you suggest to do with a page that has been proven to be not notable yet? Isn't moving it to user area a right solution? 0xd34df00d (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd move it to a personal web page. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I always thought about drafts as kind-of personal web pages. Where are true personal ones? 0xd34df00d (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Internet, outside of Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the author of that software and have a SourceForge account. You can can create a web page for it there. Last time I checked, they allowed that. Pcap ping  09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I keep this draft to not rewrite from scratch when the software becomes notable enough to satisfy WP:N. Please respect the efforts made by others. I'm not pushing it to the main namespace now, let it be just here. 0xd34df00d (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It's been since 2008, long enough. Gigs (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gonna delete all the drafts for which the source remains WP:N for more than, say, two years? 0xd34df00d (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Pcap ping  09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FAKEARTICLE seems to not be the case if I would enhance or otherwise update that page, right? 0xd34df00d (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. User space is not article space. There is no reason why an active editor can not keep an draft article in user space until good sources are found or appear with time. Indeed we often userfy deleted articles for exactly this reason. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two years with 0 sources? Shall we wait for a decade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's opensource software. It has sources in Russian part of the internet, which you would hardly consider as reliable though. But it's made in free time, without any payment, plainly on enthuiasm, don't you realize that? Don't you realize that it will be released when it'd be ready, that sources'd be found when they will be, and that there is no real reason to delete this small little userspace draft at all? There is no marketing, no advertising here, so what's the reason?
 * There's no need for that kind of comment. Anyway if there are Russian language reliable sources, we will accept them, and you should add them. Gigs (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The author is not an "active editor"; he appears to be very sporadically using a single-purpose account on Wikipedia to advertise his own software and to act as a meat puppet for Free Software deletion discussions. And yes, there are several reasons why we don't keep non-notable vanity articles in userspace, including WP:NOT and NOTADVERTISING. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm more active in Russian part of Wikipedia, since my English knowledge is still far from being good. 0xd34df00d (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - If kept, it should be tagged with userspace draft. –xenotalk 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it is now. I thought it's obvious though. 0xd34df00d (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not a requirement in userspace. Really. 90% of userspace material is not "notable."   Collect (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2010 (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.