Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

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, for now. However, if this lurks in userspace for a long time without becoming an article, then the consensus will probably change to deletion.--Aervanath (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person
Editor keeps reposting this page into article space, with little or no changes except the title, despite it being deleted several times. See Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person Verbal   chat  10:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This sort of problem calls for dialogue, and if the user refuses dialogue, for blocking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Drnhawkins is responding reasonably. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No answer It is clearly proper to have in userspace, the issue is how to handle the behaviour of the editor in moving stuff to mainspace.  And that is not really where MfD works well.  Collect (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My thoughts were that this would stop the user from simply moving this repeatedly into mainspace, and would hopefully get the message across without the need for blocking. Dialogue has been attempted and repeated advice given by many editors. Seems to have failed so far. Verbal   chat  14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And the material has already been copied again, to User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt. Is this an attempt to sidestep AfD and MfD? Verbal   chat  14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not a fan of encouraging OR, but this is certainly proper for userspace. The editor in question has very few userpages, and does not seem to be abusing the privilege of userspace.  Perhaps move protection would help, along with a reminder that re-creating deleted material in the mainspace (without a DRV) is vandalism and can result in blocking? Athanasius • Quicumque vult  16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was such a thing as move protection. Might be worth following up. Verbal   chat  16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to address Wikipedia's concerns about this article.

I can recreate this article and modify it accordingly if it is in my sandbox archive.

After all, isn't this what a sand box is for.

There are no external links to this article that I am aware of.

If the article that I resubmitted to wikipedia is unsatisfactory, I can still use this article to start again. --Drnhawkins (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If this article gets deleted from mainspace again, I will talk to an administrator before trying to republish or will ask for a deletion review.

Please leave it in my user space. I may be able to recycle it one day. (after discussion of course)--Drnhawkins (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for being so persistant but this is suppost to be a public encyclopedia where anybody can write an article and I think this article is very important.

I will not move it to mainspace again without consent from an administrator.

--Drnhawkins (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a venue for reference, not a publication site for original research; people have explained this to you over and over. Are you willing to have all but one copy of this deleted, and agree not to create new copies of this in your userspace? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes --Drnhawkins (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I may try renaming and improving it but will only keep one copy in userspace and will not move it to mainspace without permission from an administrator.--Drnhawkins (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Drnhawkins's promise not to move to mainspace. I see nothing wrong with having a copy in userspace. I would further ask Drnhawkins please to add the template on the copy in userspace if it is not there already, and to keep it there.  Lady  of  Shalott  12:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - although I once again find myself forced to advise Drnhawkins about at least taking a look at some of the relevant policies, which his above comments seem to indicate he has not yet read. Wikipedia is not a place where people are allowed to put things that are "important", but rather a place where people can add verifiable information which can be found in reliable sources. If the content is kept in userspace, with no redirects to it from mainspace, I can't see any harm, provided it contains the template the LadyofShalott indicates such pages should have above. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletethere is not really any way in which this is likely to be used in an acceptable article. There are many ways of preserving the content without it being on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Agree, with rationale, if not with need to action in the short term. Refer user to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 12 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.