Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GeicoHen/List of 1970s one-hit wonders in the United Kingdom

 __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 - it's more or less unanimous. As usual, contact Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles if you're going to work on them again. Wily D 07:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:GeicoHen/List of 1970s one-hit wonders in the United Kingdom


WP:FAKEARTICLE. User has retained these in userspace since 2010-2011 and shown no effort to improve on them. In fact, all but a handful of their edits have been creating these WP:FAKEARTICLEs in userspace. It's clear the user was not here to improve articles, just to make piles of stuff in userspace. The fact that some of them have "old" at the end suggests that the user was trying to retain "their" version of the article in some way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Appears to be high quality original research (see WP:NOR). These pages could be justificable as notes pages if the author could identify articles that might benefit from his work.  Otherwise, refer him to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that they have very few edits outside of userspace shows that they had little to no intent to create actual content. They also haven't edited in over a year, and almost all of their edits were in a short span, so recommending them elsewhere would be fruitless. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The user returns to edit intermittently. It is quite likely that he returns to read more often than to edit.  I think the pointer to Alternative outlets may be fruitful, for the user.  It is also polite, and cheap.  The pointer here suffices, in my opinion. Actually, he does have significant contributions in mainspace.  List of 1970s one-hit wonders in the United States for example.  Where the material was created in support of an existing article, we should redirect for him, but not delete his old drafts while he is gone.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UP disagrees. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TPH looks to be right. These look like forks of mainspace content, and as such should be deleted if not used in a very short time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all per User pages as unused copies unedited for over six months. Cunard (talk) 01:12, 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.