Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Frcm1988/Sandbox3

 __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 - article is under development. Wily D 05:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Frcm1988/Sandbox3


WP:STALEDRAFT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep until better examined. As a draft, it is ready for mainspace.  However, I am unsure of the authors intentions.  It seems to be an untitled draft on Take on Me.  However, that article is, and was, already well developed.  As the author is currently active, he should have been asked before the page was nominated for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT —It hasn't been worked on since January — unless the user tells us that he/she wants to continue with it. Nomination here surely is a form of notification, no? -- Klein zach  02:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Twinkle templated notice is, yes, a "notification", and no more than the "WP:STALEDRAFT" rationale, it is a very poor opening to a conversation about what looks like not unreasonable userspace content. For background on why I might offer this advice to TPH, you might read this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I note the user does want to continue working on this. P.S. I think I'll leave the reading for a rainy day!-- Klein zach  03:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi to all, I took "Take on Me" to GA status over 3 years ago, but the article have been in terrible shape for more than a year, I got tired of reverting and deleting unsourced info and trivial facts. So with the new info and sources I found I decided to develop the article from the start on my sandbox, but I never finished since I started a new job and have almost no free time left. I didn't know about that STALEDRAFT guideline, I would like to continue the article on my sandbox some time in the future as some sections are still unfinished, sorry for any inconvenience. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Frcm1988 should be given plenty of latitude here. A tight control of userspace, insisting on a minimum activty level per page is a bad idea.  It biases the environment for unemployed students, and against working, family people.  Ideas for compromise include: (1) That Frcm1988 blank the page during periods of inactivity; or (2) That he posts his thoughts on the article talk page and invites others to edit this page in his userspace, and tags the top of the page similarly; or (3) that he moves the page to a subpage of the article talk page.  Personally, I like (2).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some reasonable ideas. (2) might be worth trying, (1) yes agreed, though I think (3) would just create a subpage that no-one would go to. -- Klein  zach  04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Because is a productive editor in good standing who is not abusing Wikipedia as a webhost, this page should be kept indefinitely in an unblanked state. Frcm1988 has provided an excellent rationale for why this page should be retained (he has less time because of a new job and is tired of ignorant users defacing the article he worked hard to bring to Good article status), so WP:STALEDRAFT does not apply in a situation like this. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 24 September 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.