Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2829VC/Peter Chapple

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: No solid arguments presented on policy, and the filer has been blocked as a sock. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:2829VC/Peter Chapple


Stale userspace draft not worked on in 24+ months. The editor is semi-active. The subject of the article does not appear to be overly notable. PNGWantok (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You seem to be copying and pasting your comments in multiple articles at random. P A L Chapple was very relevant to the uk drugs scene at the time (do you know anything about it?) I have contributed quite a number of articles on this subject. This one is incomplete. I have not had the time to complete it. It is a draft and therefore not (easily) in public view. 2829  VC 10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello User:2829VC. My apologies, I don't know much about the drugs scene in the United Kingdom. My nominations are being done by going thru the stale drafts category and doing research where needed to determine whether it might be worthy of discussion. In this case I did a search on Google for the individual and I could not find anything that would give them notability. There is no time limit here on Wikipedia, as I was told by an admin today, but I also understand that Wikipedia should not be used to indefinitely host articles in userspace. Ideally it would be great to move this to an article if the person is notable. I would be happy to help you with that if you like? Thanks, PNGWantok (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, however, as you say 'i don't know much about the drugs scene in the United Kingdom' so how to you reach the conclusion that the article is not 'overly notable'. What books have you read on the subject to reach that conclusion? What research have you actually done? Do you realise that google is just one of hundreds of web search engines? And there are many other ways of searching for information than just doing a web search. Lots of information, particularly articles from professional journals are not easily accessible by the general public through the Internet. Also, it seems that you don't understand that userspace is for the development of articles that are incomplete/ without adequate support (and likely to be contested) and which therefore people don't want to make readily visible. 2829  VC 20:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello User:2829VC I have looked again at Google. I managed to filter out the results relating to the horse racing Peter Chapple, and you are right. He is notable. Would you object to the merge proposal by User:SmokeyJoe below? It will get the text into an article, which will then see it on Google results and others can help to expand as a result. Thank you, PNGWantok (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User pinged to get input on this proposed draftmerge. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge with User:Johnchapple/C.U.R.E. and move to mainspace. Notable.  Sourced.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2014 (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.