Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dan Missen/sandbox

 __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. Consensus is to keep, although I will point out that since the author's last edit was in 2014, and we are now halfway through 2017, to suggest that this is not abandoned is a stretch. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Dan Missen/sandbox


FAKEARTICLE. XXN, 16:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a fake article, but a sandboxed userspace draft, which is one of the proper purposes for userspace. Now marked as such. No valid deletion reason has been provided. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely valid use of userspace, and on the trajectory to become an article, I see no problem here. If the problem is a suspected hoax, you need to explain that. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * how about WP:NOTWEBHOST? This page was created in August 2013‎ and since then it was edited more than 250 times. I wouldn't say that this is "an individual user's work-in-progress page". We can't host forever drafts about non-notable subjects. Meanwhile someone may benefit from this, to the detriment of Wikipedia's image. --XXN, 10:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure we can. Or more exactly, notability is not an issue until the draft is submied for review. There is no limit on the number of edits, nor on the length of time a userspace draft remains in userspace, provided that it is an arguably plausible draft. This is one. While I may doubt it will become a valid manispace article, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, nor has this obviously been created in bad faith. If this were tagged with a U5 speedy, i would decline on sight. In this case the achievements mentioned, if properly supported by sources, might well support an argument for notability at an AfD even as the draft stands. I see no valid policy-based reason for deletion here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep although it started as an autobiography. It doesn't violate any rules about draft space and isn't abandoned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2017 (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.