Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronzat/Reactive Search Srl




 * 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 keep. Move to the incubator if wanted. harej 04:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Aaronzat/Reactive Search Srl
User-space copy of a speedy-deleted article with no indication of notability ; was categorized as it was a real page and thus smells of WP:FAKEARTICLE. Cycl o pia talk  15:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep With categories removed. Notability is not a requirement for userspace. No claim of COI or SPAM.   And there is no policy that an article which does not belong in mainspace can not exist in userspace. Collect (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It exists: WP:FAKEARTICLE. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? Did you see the word "indefinitely" there? I seriously doubt 2 weeks is the time period implied by that word.   Collect (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep w/o cats - Deleted articles can be userfied (see essay WP:USERFY). Wikipedia shows no inappropriate incoming links to the page. Perhaps we should consider requiring or something similar on all userfied pages. It certainly wouldn't hurt in cases like this one. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate/Keep I recommend incubation, or it being kept. If sources could be found it is a reaonable article, and by no means falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, give it a chance. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate/Delete Incubation is more appropriate for deleted content to get improved. Otherwise delete as WP:FAKEARTICLE Miami33139 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is reasonable to try a userspace draft after it was speedy deleted.  This appears to be a newcomer.  This nomination is bitey.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to bite the newcomer, but I've seen little or no discussion about this page on the user talk page and it was treated by the user as it was a real page -therefore I've interpreted it as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. However I understand your point. Given the current building consensus I withdraw the nom. Heck, the second MfD I withdraw out of three...I have to learn still. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly the necomer doesn't know that mainspace categories don't know when they are in userspace and so have to be manually removed else they confuse a mainspace reader, and they really mean to work on the notability and sourcing issues. If you're a little unsure that a page MUST be DELETED, it's nicer to ask the user if they know what they are doing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. Apologies. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Incubate Recently edited userspace drafts do not violate WP:FAKEARTICLE. Although I see Cyclopia withdrew his nomination above, I personally would prefer moving this to the article incubator (leaving a redirect behind) rather than merely keeping. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove article categories. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  01:30, 23 January 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.