Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret

 __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. Note that per WP:FAKEARTICLE, "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." (bold emphasis mine). North America1000 07:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret


This article subject has been floating around here since September 2004. It was deleted from mainspace by AFDs in 2007, in January 2011 and again per Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (5th nomination) in December 2013. A restoration request was made in February 2014 so this was moved here but no editing was done to this draft and the editor seemed to have stopped editing here in November 2015. I think we can delete this again and if someone wants to ask for recreation, they can if they provide some actual significant coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still here, and she is still an important activist. It would be better if the article was restored and then built up again. She is widely published Bachcell (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No one else seems to think so. Are you planning on working on this or just keep on asking for recreation to keep a version of this around? It's been deleted three times at AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep . Well within reasonable leeway for a productive Wikipedian.  No evidence that the user is irresponsible in userspace.  There are no time limits.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you have considered voting keep for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Conrad Hughes Hilton III? That wasn't editing since April 2015 and was only deleted because of one AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Ricky81682. Firstly, it is not a very similar case, because it is not in userspace.  However...  I always start by considering "Keep" until I am satisfied of the rationale for deletion.  The nomination there was immediately convincing, except for the word "restored" which left the begging question "why was it restored"? The AfD was convincing, four participants all in complete agreement; the number of AfD discussions is an unexpected point.  One clear AfD is far more convincing that several messy AfD discussions.  I might have looked at the content to check that the contents matched the AfD comments.  I am very comfortable for that draftified deleted article to have been deleted while allowing User:Bachcell as much time as he likes.  I would, as I have said maybe hundreds of times over almost ten years, advise the User is blank the contents of userfied deleted pages during periods of activity, especially where there is a possible issue of WP:Advocacy.
 * As an aside, I think the Leuren Moret story is very interesting, and that the nuclear material / radiation / depleted uranium in munitions story is interested, and probably already well covered. I believe that there is an error in the deleted article, as depleted uranium poses a zero radiation issue.  Zero, because there is no evidence that tiny radiation doses do damage, see radiation hormesis.  Instead, depleted uranium in munitions leads to its dispersal as a fine powder that that it is hazardous as a toxic heavy metal.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So do you want it put in mainspace? Should we have to go through a sixth AFD before actual deletion can be considered? Does that fact that it hasn't been edited since 2014 matter? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I do not want to put it in mainspace, it needs caring work. The AfDs are significant, but don't neglect to mention that some concluded as "keep", and all, individually and collectively, are very weak.  No, time since last edit is irrelevant if it contains material helpful for building an article.  Time measures of inactivity were brought in to facilitate easy reject of old worthless stuff.  Having established that this is not worthless, it is inappropriate to try to apply time limits.  The page should be classified as a B-grade draft if processing must be done, it should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, the page should be blanked during periods of inactivity. It was deleted at Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (5th nomination), and it is not OK to leave it lying around live.  I do think there is potential to overcome the reasons for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Stale draft, zombie since 2007 when it was deleted from mainspace. No indication that it will ever be improved enough to merit reconsideration for mainspace. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete it is actually the oldest stale draft in the system at the moment.  If it is not going to be an article it needs to go already. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * can you point to any additional substantial coverage that have been published since 2013 that might result in this subject becoming notable? The spirit of WP:NOTWEBHOST implies that we should respect the consensus at the previous AfD by not keeping an exact copy of the article in user space indefinitely. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per users Legacypac and Hobbes. If the people who want to keep this don't improve the article despite repeated deletion nominations, then it doesn't deserve to be kept any longer. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host... old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2016 (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.