Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Axem Titanium/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series (2nd nomination)

 __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  Keep as an active draft that may be close to ready for mainspace. There was some sentiment for moving to mainspace straightaway based on the new sources that have been added, but Axem Titanium has indicated a desire to do further editing and I do not see sufficient consensus in the discussion to force a move that might be premature. Since the article name is protected, a recreation request at Deletion Review should be submitted once the draft is ready. --RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Axem Titanium/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series
WP:STALEDRAFT. Not edited by user since 2009, only edits are by IPs who think it's the real article. Sources aren't quite enough for this to survive in article space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Transfer into somebody else's userspace. This might be notable, perhaps somebody else might be able to find references. I don't know who would, but this might be possible to improve. NotARealWord (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying move it from one stale draft to another? Yeah, that REALLY makes sense... not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying let somebody else improve it. NotARealWord (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Improve it with what? And there's no reason that they can't improve it here; it's just that no one is. WP:STALEDRAFT makes it clear that, if nobody's touching an article draft in userspace, it should be deleted. No one is, so it should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems to suggest that a user is not allowed to keep "one's preferred version" of an article, sort of like "my edit got revertd, but since i can't handle that, I made a copy of th way I think an article should look like. I don't really see anything that indicates that it's like that. It doesn't really say what to do for long term storage of what might be potentially a valid article. This does look more like an article under development instead of something kept just to please the user. NotARealWord (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TL;DR Nothing in WP:STALEDRAFT (which is the "Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages" section of User pages)about terrily neglected works in progress. NotARealWord (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete We've been pounding this thing since at least 2006. If it hasn't received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources by now, it probably never will. Definitely falls under WP:UP because user space is not for indefinitely hosting deleted content. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAGAIN, this page was created specifically to avoid the repeated AFD dance. In that sense, it has succeeded because it has generated a number of reliable third-party sources which may help it go through DRV. Also, for the record, this isn't a copy of deleted content at all. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - this does not have any reliable third-party sources to cover it. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It has plenty of reliable sources. Not only does it have third-party news coverage, it has scholarly work based on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, then take article to DRV, I just added 3 new sources bringing the total to 10. I think the article has enough third-party sources to stand on its own, but I probably won't use much of the prose that currently exists. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think DRV is only for after the X for Deletion gets closed. NotARealWord (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, refactoring my opinion above. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources becoming better, far better than most of the net culture articles we have. — Dispenser 06:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I will admit my initial reaction was to just ignore this, as it has been deleted over and over as pointed out above. But looking the article over, I'd say that it actually does have a number of reliable third-party sources (and some not-so-reliable sources, but that's fixable later).  I don't like it, but... 159.182.1.4 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, is this not gone yet? Stifle (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this not a valid delete reason? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: CSE results. --Gwern (contribs) 19:28 30 December 2010 (GMT)
 * Move to Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series and list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series (2nd nomination) Because several established users including and  consider the userspace draft to have sufficiently established notability, it should be moved to the mainspace. The significant changes to the page since 17 November 2007 make it ineligible for db-repost. I request that after the article is moved to the mainspace, it is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series (2nd nomination) to allow editors such as  and, who believe that the article lacks coverage in reliable sources, to make a case for deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask that the closing admin restore the history of Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series to satisfy the GFDL attribution requirements. Cunard (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2011 (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.