Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bilby/Bonghan system

 __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 Atmoz (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bilby/Bonghan system
This was an article which was deleted following Articles for deletion/Bonghan theory. It was recreated and deleted again. I received a request for userfication, and duly userfied it on 29 September 2010. Since then the page has not been edited at all, and should be deleted per WP:STALEDRAFT. A user space page is not for long-term keeping of articles which have been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete . This site is not for indefinite hosting of material that is unlikely to become an article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. My argument is obviated by the below. Good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll get to work on this over the next few weeks - the topic has been the subject of a number of academic papers in peer-reviewed journals, including nine in the past 12 months. Most of this is from the one research group, and I see the topic as fringe and unlikely to every get mainstream support, (or to warrant it), but that seems like enough research to warrant some neutral coverage. If I can't get something working before a few weeks, I'm happy put it up for CSD. - Bilby (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As an update, I've been able to add some historical background (discovery in 1964, replication and failure to replicate in the following years). My major concern on rushing this through is that there are a lot of papers published in the last few years, but most are from the same group. So I'm intending to go through them in order to get some balance, as I'm hoping that there has been critical review of the recent findings. - Bilby (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: Is a four month old article really considered "stale"? I though we typically gave a year since the last major revision for these types of things (i.e. actually has a chance of becoming a real article). Buddy431 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bilby. This is not an article that is offensive to the project even if kept in userspace indefinitely, and is not stale.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 3 February 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.