Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chubbles/Ncyde

Closing instructions 
 * 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.--Aervanath (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Chubbles/Ncyde
Userpage archive of repeatedly deleted article, no evidence of working to fix concerns article was deleted for. Sceptre (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's OK as is, there are no time limits, unless the problem is that it's existence in userspace is for promotional purposes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Userfied articles do not have any WP:DEADLINE at all. And userspace does not require that contents be encyclopedia articles. Hence, no valid reason for deletion here. Collect (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be any improvement intended at all. This just appears to be circumventing our deletion policy by having a repeatedly deleted (and salted) article in userspace. Sceptre (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – I don't quite agree with Collect that there should be absolutely no deadline, but I also don't think that three months is too much time (I would suggest waiting another 3–6 months). Also, please notify Chubbles of this nomination. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do feel that some limits are reasonable -- but a while back one was kept that was three years old where I said "delete" -- I should more properly have said "no specific time limits have been used in MfD at all." In an extended discussion somewhere, the time period of 6 months was bandied, and not followed through on. Collect (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, we are in agreement. :) Thank you for clarifying. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 00:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep 3 months is getting on the outside end of this sort of thing. However, the editor has many productive edits and is in good standing. It isn't like this a userfied article to a SPA. Given that, I'm strongly inclined to give Chubbles more leeway. I agree that in another 3 or 6 months if the situation is identical then it wouldn't be bad to look at it again. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2009 (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.