Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eddstonham/Cambridge Time Traveller Group




 * 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. I doubt if the group is notable, but I will explain to the user what he needs to show. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Eddstonham/Cambridge Time Traveller Group
Violates WP:NOT. Created by now indef-blocked user.  Sandstein  19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC) :*I read the page, and the contributor's contributions, and I do not thing that the advertising here is problematic, and I think that Please do not bite the newcomers should be read more carefully than underlying tones. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lay off for a bit.  User appears to be unblocked again.  Seems to be a newcomer who accidentally got into socking trouble.  His userpage suggests that he is looking into the bookloads of links he's been pointed to.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "Indef block" lasting for twelve hours seems an inadequate reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think whether a user is blocked or not holds much weight in a deletion discussion. To me the page appears to be just a workpage, perhaps a bit spammy but this is Userspace not article space. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE per nominator, note also the underlying advertising tone of the article (Really, please read through before you jump to "keep"). -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 06:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Removing off topic comment. Please stay on topic, thank you. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some consider the striking of others comments as rude. My comment to you was a suggestion that your !vote looks to me like a mispriorisation of mild WP:NOT over WP:Editors matter, and a response to what looks like an insinuation that I and others did not read the nominated page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like, but let me clarify that it wasn't. And again, please stay on topic, thank you. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * verbum sapiens I rather think SmokeyJoe is an experienced editor at this point with appreciable experience on XfD discussions.  Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on guys lets all smile and get along, and focus on whats at hand. User:Dave1185 I understand your viewpoint, but this is a workpage we are talking about give the guy some chance to find sources and work on this article. If this were at WP:AFD then I would certainly say delete, but this in my mind is an acceptable use of userspace. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 23:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * keep. Not excessivly promotional, could possibly become a vcalid article in time (probably not, but let the user work on it). I have added userspace draft which applies NOINDEX so promotion is less of an issue, and the status is clear. DES (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2010 (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.