Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Airwolfe31/Peterson sandbox

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Airwolfe31/Peterson sandbox


Stale draft with no activity from user since 2008. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to have failed WP:CORP, but I can't find the AfD.  See User talk:Airwolfe31 for a record of appallingly poor treatment of a new account.  Attempted deletion of this page is further rudeness.  Replacing with Inactive userpage blanked is amply sufficient.  Duration of the user's inactivity is irrelevant.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment not sure what your point about rudeness is SmokeyJoe, the nominated page was originally Peterson Power Systems and was tagged as G11 blatent advertising and following discussion it was userfied as User:Airwolfe31/Peterson sandbox which has been left untouched for nearly five years, the user has not used the account since 2008. As to blanking the fact that I came to this page because it was using copyright images doesnt bode well for the rest of the article and why I brought it to MfD. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The rudeness, WP:BITE, can be seen in the old history at User talk:Airwolfe31. I am uncomfortable with deleting the work, or records of the work of someone treated so poorly.  This looks to have been a genuine good faith new user.  His alleged COI was not a reason to delete his article (which I can't find a record of, I can't find a deletion log or move log).  There is a little more talk at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lankiveil&oldid=254571438#Peterson_Power_Systems  The article did not meet WP:CORP, but I think it could have been made suitable, and it wasn't a G11.  It needs third party sourcing, which does not not obviously exist. Given the record of harsh interaction with the user, plus a small chance of material being salvagable, I think it should be kept, blank, behind the template Inactive userpage blanked.  There is advantage to this on the off chance that the user ever returns.  There is no disadvantage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate that bitey actions should be avoided where possible, in this case we've plainly already lost the editor for good. He's not going to come back after all that time and restart the article from a user page sandbox. At first glance it doesn't look that inappropriate an article, and could perhaps be saved if an interested party could be found for it; however, that's not going to happen while it's sat where it is. If someone wants to try rescuing this from deletion, I'd say they should try to do that this week. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I looked at a fair few sources of information on the web.  This looks like quite a decent, respectable company.  But it doesn't seem to have attracted independent third party interest, and so does not meet our inclusion criteria.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 25 May 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.