Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dhelfond/Valley Bulldog

 __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  speedy delete (copyright violation). Huon (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Dhelfond/Valley Bulldog


Draft userified in May 2013 after the repeated deletions at Valley Bulldog (based on Articles for deletion/Valley Bulldog). After requesting and obtaining userification, editor stopped editing here entirely that same month. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Material that can either be improved or used in a broader article.
 * No NOTWEBHOST or PROMOTION concerns, and entirely appropriate sub topic.
 * The AfD was *extremely* weak and considered only the stand alone article question
 * The is no need to apply any deadline to this sort of material.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So now we have "weak" AFD discussions and "strong" AFD discussions? We can't evaluate the userspace one on notability grounds because that's only for an AFD and even though an AFD already evaluated it three years ago and found no evidence of notability, it wasn't a "strong enough" AFD discussion about the lack of notability to bar the deletion and so we should still keep this userspace draft around? Of course, since we also shouldn't move userspace page to mainspace, really the only way any draft ever gets evaluated is if someone actually creates a full-fledged page, moves it to mainspace and by all luck there's actually a "sufficiently thorough" discussion to evaluate whether or not the draft is even accurate let alone notable? You've been arguing the same thing about the A7-deleted userifications that the discussions aren't "robust enough" to warrant actually deleting them. At some point, evaluate the content discussed here, don't use each particular MFD to make some grand point against rewriting the entire CSD and AFD criteria or whatever your issue is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The decision to delete was very weak.  One brief nominator, two relists, then closed "SOFT DELETE".  Of course this matters. The AfD was begging for sources or a merge target.  Google readily provides evidence of the dog cross-breed, readily verified.  Notability speaks to standalone articles, and doesn't apply to userspace, I personally didn't even participate in that near unanimous RfC (Wikipedia_talk:Notability).
 * This material should not be deleted. The topic belongs in mainspace, somewhere.  A merge to Bulldog_breeds for example.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a draft. It's the userification of deleted content, the purpose of which is to improve the page. It has not been improved in two years. What is the point of any deletion discussion if the editor can just request userification, not improve it, move it again later and make us discuss it again? Is there any finality here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Finality? Even in mainspace finality is a dubious goal. In userspace it is an absurd goal. A worthy goal is to improve the encyclopaedia by including coverage of Valley Bulldogs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Overturn the AfD, per the allowance of the WP:SOFTDELETE close, and merge and redirect to Bulldog breeds. This is a clearly existing local bulldog variant, a mix of bulldog with a bulldog mix (the boxer).  Limited (though existing) coverage of the mixed breed exists, but coverage is better suited at Bulldog breeds.  I will do the merge myself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost (WP:CSD), likely copyright violation. The same content can be found all over the net, including here with a copyright from "2003-2011", which indicates it may well predate our article essay. Huon (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a U5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 6 May 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.