Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea

 __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 delete mainly per NOTHOST (in userspace) and NOTDIR (as to the prospects of this in mainspace). I will happy email the content of the deleted page to Adam mugliston on request. BencherliteTalk 21:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea


Since Lists of bus routes in "X" have been deemed uncyclopedic, Having these stored is now pointless - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  20:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Evidently a stale draft or fake article. Does not appear to have encyclopedic value. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The lists are in my own userspace and are kept there for my own reference and for possible future development into an article with much higher standards and prose. I cannot see any harm in them remaining, as they are not articles readers may easily stumble upon and confuse them. Adam Mugliston  talk  10:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this was intended to be a reply to my !vote. If it was, it is Wikipedia's policy to not keep content unrelated to building an encyclopedia. (see WP:NOTWEBHOST.) I understand from the nominator there is a consensus this type of list could not be developed into an article, and thus the page would be reference material unrelated to Wikipedia. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Buses in Ipswich. It is an example of what could be done to it with encyclopaedic value. Adam Mugliston  talk  18:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see this list expanding to an article like that, in a way that really relies on the list as a base. It seems to me that this information, if needed by an article, could be retrieved from the appropriate primary source. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sorry, Adam, but this has been sitting here for more than two years, and it isn't really encyclopedic anyway. T  C  N7 JM  10:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep They are in userspace of a user is still active. They are not hurting anything. Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The editor is still active and consensus can change. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor is still active isn't a valid reason, The article hasn't been updated since July 2011, plus the relevent info is here →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  03:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument that something in userspace should be deleted because its not encyclopedic is really not a valid reason either. There is nothing, not a single thing in the entire userspace that is encyclopedic. That's part of the reason why we have a separate namespace for it. If we deleted things from userspace on these grounds we would need to delete the entire namespace. Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But everything in a userspace becomes encyclopedic eventually - If not it ends up here.... which is I suppose we're here now, This list cannot be encyclopedic as it is plus If Adam regularly updated or prosed it then we wouldn't be here. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  03:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry wrong again. Userpages are not encyclopedic, the subpages for awards, quips, edit counts, etc. Not even the sandboxes generally are encyclopedic. I have a dozen pages I haven't touched in months or years. Kumioko (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO they are (minus awards, etc), Also WP:WEBHOST states Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia - Adam's not using nor updating - Just storing.
 * I think it's fair to say tho we both disagree on this & we both should probably just move on
 * →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  03:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make my position clear, editors are granted considerable leeway to incubate articles in their own userspace; so long as they remain active there's an expectation that they could return to it and perhaps move the material (in one form or another) into the article space. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, but the problem is that once he moves this article to the mainspace, it'd be nominated for deletion on the spot due to the consensus gained by previous discussions. This is why these lists don't belong anywhere. T  C  N7 JM  00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This copy of a deleted article has been sitting here unedited for over two years. Per WP:Userpage "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."--Charles (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:UPYES. [...] other legitimate uses of user space include (but are not limited to): [...] Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future [...] It's not a fake article and isn't indexed by search engines, so there doesn't seem to be any real harm there. While WP:NOTDIR indicates that such a collection of material is unlikely to be directly encyclopedic in that format, the information could still potentially inform encyclopedic research/writing, e.g. imagine additional columns for start/end date, notable changes to routes, etc. There's possibly an argument for a move to project space, but deletion seems unwarranted. -- Trevj (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment- If he's not worked on it for 2 Years then it's not material being worked on is it ....
 * Also plead read WP:NOTHOST (as stated above!). →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  13:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This would be AfD'd instantly if returned to project space. If it was desired to write a secondary sourced article about buses in Clacton it would be better to start from scratch as this material would be removed per consensus anyway. WP:UPNOT is very clear that copies of deleted articles and stale drafts should be deleted.--Charles (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we assume good faith, a stale draft may be useful by the creator at some point in time. WP:STALEDRAFT states [...] should not be used to indefinitely host pages [...] Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these). There is no deadline, and users should be permitted to store useful material as they wish within userspace. It's not important that more than 2 years have passed since the page was last edited, and this does not equate to indefinite hosting. I myself have a considerable quantity of userspace material and drafts which I'll deal with eventually, e.g. was only moved to mainspace more than a year after initial drafting (I normally copy/paste content from userspace directly into new articles rather than preserving languishing histories, but didn't do so on this occasion). I appreciate that the content isn't comparable in this instance, but the same principles of not unnecessarily messing around with the userspace of others should apply. -- Trevj (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if I hadn't nominated it it would've been there for infinity. Davey 2010 T  09:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't be certain of that at this stage - however, if the creator were retired then I could see some point to this nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Adam stated above that the list is in his userspace for his own reference for possible future development. Adam creates bus article topic content. While the page itself could not be developed into an article, editors like Adam who have significant article space contributions can have notes related to their Wikipedia work and activities per WP:UPYES. It's not our place to judge the form of those notes. WP:STALEDRAFT does not apply to user notes so it does not matter that the page has not been edited for two years. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * possible future development .... Not guaranteed future development, While the page itself could not be developed into an article - Well you've just said it yourself they wont be used...., If Adam wanted something doing it would've been done along time ago →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  09:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What I posted is that Adam is using the sub user page 'Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea' as permitted by WP:UPYES. It may not be in the way those proposing deletion want, e.g., develop the page into an article, but UPYES does not require him to only use his user space pages in that way. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of "user notes" would be referenced material waiting to be written up as prose. This is an unreferenced very stale draft article of a type which have all been deleted. Because this type of information changes so frequently it would all have to be redone anyway. I believe WP:UPNOT is more relevant here.--Charles (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (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.