Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BWDP/McDojo (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 delete. harej 02:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:BWDP/McDojo (2nd nomination)
Full nomination includes:
 * User:BWDP/McDojo
 * User:Nate1481/Bullshido.net
 * User:Nate1481/McDojo
 * User:Nate1481/Bullshido

All four titles had previously been in article namespace, and had gone through AFD nominations in May 2010, all of which ended in "delete" (see McDojo, Bullshido, and Bullshido.net). The User:BWDP/McDojo title had previously been in an MFD discussion here, where discussion revealed the other three titles, and consensus indicated that it was too soon to have the userspace draft deleted. It has now been more than six months after the articles were deleted, and with the exception of User:Nate1481/McDojo, none have had any work made on them towards improving the article since their recreation in userspace (and the one that was worked on would most likely not survive an AFD discussion). Thus I am nominating these for deletion per recommendation at the previous discussion, and also citing WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all WP:FAKEARTICLE states, "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." Because these pages violates WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, they should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After nearly seven months in the userspace, none of the userspace drafts has been improved. Three of the four have been untouched, left in the state they were in after being deleted per Articles for deletion/McDojo (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Bullshido (3rd nomination), and Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). The edits to the fourth draft, User:Nate1481/McDojo, by are not improvements. They consist of a GFDL-violating copy-and-paste of unsourced original research from GKR Karate, which was nominated for deletion at GKR Karate three days ago. I was unable to find secondary coverage for any of these topics which existed in original research states for several years. I doubt that the topics will become notable anytime soon. After seven months of these drafts circumventing community consensus at the AfDs, they should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Your little campaign not over yet Cunard? My error Again [SchuminWeb] you fail to bother to notify interested users, when nominating a page in a users own space it might be considered polite to tell them! I have not worked on the articles as I have been busy with real life (see my general edit counts) and am well aware that they need significant improvement to be considered for reinstatement. If I were linking to them from every where (internal or external) then I could see the issue but wanting to find the time so sit down and work on them is not unreasonable. I have removed the IP edits from the McDojo draft as unhelpful. With regard to the GFDL issue, the pages are clearly linked to the original locations at the top. --Natet/c 14:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Cunard did not nominate the articles for deletion, did.--kelapstick(bainuu) 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seven months is more than adequate time to locate the necessary sources. The fact that you did not make time to improve these articles indicates to me that you either are acting to circumvent community consensus that this material be deleted by hosting them in your userspace, or that the sources truly do not exist.  Considering your comments, I think there's a little bit of both going on (yes, I have thrown good faith out the window with you).  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read my comments fully, I said I have been largely busy with real life (company expansion + moving house to be precise) so have been to bust to edit ANYTHING for long, let alone invest the significant time needed to cut back these and bring forward the necessary sourcing for the supportable sections. With regard to your comments on AGF Please clearly state where I have acted in bad faith, so that you abandon the assumption that we are all trying to improve things here. Not notify in someone that you are have nominated pages form their user space for deletion is simple bad manners, or an attempt to circumvent process, with the fact you refuse to acknowledge the people may have lives off-line I am afraid you are the one who seems to have acted in extreme bad faith. Please check my wiki activity (here I have simply not been online enough to work on this, missing the IP edits to the page (that was similar to material that I had previously removed when it was in the article space) is just testament to that. --Natet/c 12:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kelapstick, for the correction. Schuminweb, I'm afraid I have to agree with you regarding the intentions of hosting this content. Cunard (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the error on who nominated them, as I was not notified by SchuminWeb when I saw your name signed near the top I made the assumption on past experience. --Natet/c 12:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all These have all been discussed at AfD and it was decided they should be deleted. I see no evidence that they would be capable of being made into articles suitable for being kept, but it is reasonable to give users a chance to prove that it is possible. However, if after seven months that has not been done, it is time for them to go, as decided at their AfDs. Temporary userfication is for work to be done on the pages, not for them to be left around unchanged (or virtually unchanged) until someone finally suggests deleting them. (It is perhaps worth mentioning also that Nate1481, who has been too busy to edit these pages, made a total of 229 edits between 09:23 24 May 2010, when the last of these user pages was created and 05:26 13 December 2010, when this MfD page was created.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For comparison how many edits did I make in the 7 months before that? And that the edits were 3 or 4 every few days? --Natet/c 13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What does a user's edit count between such and such a date really have to do with anything? I'm not concerned about how many times someone clicked the "Save" button.  I'm concerned about where those edits were made and their content.  And in both Nate and BDWP's cases, the userfied copies of the deleted articles have either hardly been touched or never touched since the original deletion at AFD.  Unless someone would like to demonstrate some notability here via reliable sources (and I more than ever doubt such sources exist), then per WP:FAKEARTICLE, these pages must die.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the idea of userifying articles was to give them time to be worked on if they were not acceptable in the main space, and if the article is out of the main space with only one user to work on in it how is the users activity level not relavent to the level of changes in the article? --Natet/c 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So the activity of the editor working on the article, is completely irrelevant to if the article has been worked on enough right... --Natet/c 09:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct - how active an editor is by edit count doesn't really define anything except how many times one clicks the "Save" button. Quality > Quantity and all that.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you agree that I may simply have been too busy to edit much, let alone had the time to significantly improve the article to meet notability standards? Or are you saying I have made no worth while contributions so my current lack of them is no different? --Natet/c 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really intended to improve the article, you would have made time by now to do so. It's pretty clear that after seven months, the community has determined that your time is up.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I've seen a number of cases where a post-AFD draft was improved and eventually returned to mainspace. But those cases all had a crucial element in common: someone had to work on the drafts. To take a copy of an AFD-deleted article and then sit on it for months with no attempts at improvement, is not in keeping with purposes of user space or the guidelines at WP:UP. --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 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.