Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ebineibgheniobg/Daniel Matthew

 __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 delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ebineibgheniobg/Daniel Matthew


These look like userspace drafts for a group of articles, but they have all been around for several months (2 of them since July), and there is no indication that the user actually intends to release them as articles, rather than just keep them indefinitely in user space. The pages are about a 14 year old boy who has aspirations to be a musician, but has not yet recorded or released anything. There are two possibilities. (1) They are drafts for articles on a non-notable subject, with no indication of significance. In this case, if they ever are released as articles they will qualify for speedy deletion. They have been in existence as drafts long enough now, and it is clear that they are not going to be suitable as articles. (2) They are not intended for release as articles, but are rather intended to stay indefinitely in user space. In this case they are a use of Wikipedia as a free web host, which is not Wikipedia's purpose, so they should be deleted. Whichever of those two situations applies, the user page guideline say that "Userspace ... should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". JamesBWatson (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep In re (1), speedy deletion is, well, speedy, speedier certainly than a MfD and much less work all 'round. What is lost by letting the mainspace patrols delete them if and when they're migrated from userspace? In re (2), I believe the pages are currently intended for the exclusive use of the editor. If the pages are not for external consumption, then it's not a website or a blog at all, let alone a medium for social interaction, so WP:NOTWEBHOST isn't relevant. WP:FAKEARTICLE is more apt, but six months isn't "indefinitely." I haven't used my fishing tackle since July, but it's not in storage indefinitely. (Fair warning, fish!) Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all. I agree: it is a simple case of violating the WP:NOTWEBHOST rule. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Not WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- Klein  zach  01:36, 4 January 2012 (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.