Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bgarofallou/Jack Bergstrand

 __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 - if someone actually intends to work on it, ask me or anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. But there isn't a consensus here for keeping it around indefinitely for no one in particular. Wily D 06:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Bgarofallou/Jack Bergstrand


Abandoned copy of article deleted at afd. WP:FAKEARTICLE duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - While Substantive progress has been made since Userfication. It was not Ready for Primetime on 21 February when it was last touched. User has no other contributions (besides talking to Admins and other process-related concerns about this article). The Deletion was endorsed at this Deletion Review after the substantive changes. User has not contributed since the DR. Achowat (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Moved to WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Jack Bergstrand. WP:FAKEARTICLE no longer applies. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay, another place for spammers to indefinitely store their crap. It was deleted at add for a good reason and you think we should use yet another backdoor method to keep it around? I think it should be deleted wherever it is. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral If this doesn't have the potential to become an article, that's different. In my opinion we should keep or delete this beacd on weather it has potential (not based on if anyone is working in it, but it's potential if someone were to work on it). I could be wrong, but baced on Achowat's vote, it seems like he thinks it has potential. WP:FAKEARTICLE no longer appalys to this draft because of the move Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving a page under discussion out of user space so that it does not fall under the letter of the policy or guideline cited as deletion reason (in this case WP:FAKEARTICLE) is disruptive. I have therefore moved it back. Perhaps the editor who moved it failed to notice that the MfD template displayed on the page says "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress." (My emphasis.) If and when this discussion produces a consensus to keep the page, it will be possible to consider whether it should be moved. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I'm new at MFDs. However I don't understand how the new title broke the spirit of WP:FAKEARTICLE. WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, it's meant for abandoned drafts, so to apply WP:FAKEARTICLE to draft articles there would defeat the whole purpose. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That may indicate that WikiProject Abandoned Drafts is misguided in the first place. Regardless, the existence of a WikiProject for a given subject does not mean that there is a consensus for a process involving said WikiProject, particularly one strongly at odds with our general policy on the retention of deleted articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete An AfD discussion and a deletion review both concluded that this article should be deleted. Despite that, an admin kindly userfied it for the user who had sought undeletion, to allow improvement. As Achowat has pointed out, in seven months that user has made no attempt to improve it, nor indeed edited at all. Neither userspace nor anywhere else should be used for long-term preservation of content which consensus has determined is unsuitable for inclusion, which is all that has happened as a result of the userfication. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Achowat and JamesBWatson. -- Klein  zach  05:40, 23 October 2012 (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.