Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers (2nd nomination)

 __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. Cunard's cogent argument that edits since the past MfD are generally of a trivial nature has not been rebutted, and renders the "two months" argument of substantially lesser weight. T. Canens (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers
Inactive userspace draft. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, drafts of articles in userspace may not be kept indefinitely. This one was created back in March 2008(!), and has never been moved to mainspace. In its previous MFD, in January 2009, the majority view was 'let the user have more time to develop it'. It's been two years since then, and although the user has continued to edit this page, there's still no sign that it's ever going to be moved to mainspace. In fact, even she seems now to have abandoned it; she hasn't edited it since last September.

Once again, an article draft cannot be kept in userspace forever. It's time we called time on this one. It's worth noting that it would almost certainly not survive as a mainspace article in any case, since it's entirely original research. I sympathise with the user for the large amount of work she's put into it, but quite simply, this is not what userspace is for. Robofish (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible delete - long overdue move on this blatant violation of WP:NOTBLOG and WP:OR. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yep, time to go. No progress towards making a viable article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I call WP:TIMELIMIT on this well-sourced draft. Though the creator has not edited it since September, others have.  And if impatience is the theme here, why not be bold and move it into mainspace?  It seems plenty ready enough at this point in time.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest and leave it alone. These things take time, sometimes a lot of time. What is the rush? I sense a bit of I Don't Like It from those who want this gone. Every once in a while I take a stab at finding more, but so far, I have been out of luck. One day I might stumble upon something. It is deep in my userspace where a casual user is not likely to find it. I am tired of telling people that I got the information for this article from 3rd party sources, hence the very long reference list. This is nitpicking taken to the extreme. So what if it will take more than a few years to get the information. It isn't like sources for this are easily found. I am also feeling that there is a bit of a vendetta against this. It seems that the same people always step up to get it deleted. I want to know how Robofish found it in the first place. I have a lot of other stuff in my userspace that are far sillier, but those pages seem to meet with the approval of the group. Another thing, I am on an extended sabbatical from Wikipedia. I have been busy over the last few years on off-Wikipedia projects. I would like to have this article protected from deletion until I can devote more time to it. ArcAngel, I would be bold, but it is not ready for mainspace yet, which means that it would be deleted within a day. I have put too much work into this to have it deleted out of hand at the prompting of people who don't like the premise or content. Some don't want to admit that all of my data came from primary sources and 3rd parties. The first MFD failed, as this one should fail. LA (T) @ 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no time limit to these things, and it was worked on two months before this nomination. A lot of edits have been made by various people over time to make the article what it now is.  Has plenty of sources.  Leave it be.  How would you even find it unless you were just roaming around user pages looking for something to complain about and destroy?   D r e a m Focus  21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Following a view of the recent Green Hornet movie, I was interested to learn that the sixties Green Hornet had a crossover appearance in the sixties Batman show. Checking this now, I find that the crossover is documented in The encyclopedia of superheroes on film and television.  None of this is in the article yet and so there's lots of room for further development.  We should move the article to main space where everyone can have a crack at it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Still not "indefinite storage" by any means at the two month level.  By the way, even four months does not generally qualify as "abandoned" and this article clearly is not abandoned. Collect (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm seeing a lengthy list of crossover appearances, plus the (probably WP:OR) introductory observation that Lucy "started a chain reaction through the television world"; although heavily sourced, this draft is in no way suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, it's obviously a good-faith effort, not someone abusing Wikipedia for free web space; and the userspace draft template clears my bar for not being WP:FAKEARTICLE. If the User:Lady Aleena were no longer on Wikipedia and editing this draft, I'd lean toward Euthanize, but that is not the case. If someone wants to make a decent article from this, I wouldn't object to transferring it to another (non-Article) space for more collaboration. It would either need meaningful content beyond the excessively lengthy list of crossovers, or to be converted into a stand-alone list and linked/formatted/edited accordingly. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly not a "fake article", nor anything that's hurting anything whatsoever by being there. It's not encyclopedic, per our current definition of encyclopedic, but neither is it unrelated, nor any sort of a problem for Copyvio, attack, or promotion. There's no good reason to delete it, nor any good reason to put it in mainspace.  This is the sort of thing that should be allowed to live indefinitely outside of mainspace--it's clear that it's useful to someone, just not the folks who don't appreciate such things. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   gossip 04:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Stale. If anyone thinks this can be finished, move it to the incubator and do it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * ...except that it will just be deleted out of the incubator if it's not rapidly finished. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Keep User drafts, clearly marked as such, are an explicit exemption according to WP:FAKEARTICLE. I fail to see where anything has changed from the prior MfD. There is no WP:DEADLINE for this to be moved to mainspace. I fail to see what harm is being caused to the project by the existence of this page. It is in user space, and unless the nom can demonstrate the harm being caused, I see no valid reason to delete any working draft from an active user.  Jim Miller  See me 13:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But JIM! What about the children! Surely they are harmed by this userspace workstuff!!--Milowent • talkblp-r 23:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stale drafts are no exception. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Delete: clearly a WP:STALEDRAFT kept "long-term"/"indefinately", with minimal work on it since the last MfD two years ago. Definitely not a "short term hosting", so not an exception to this rule. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, clear violation of WP:STALEDRAFT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, clear violation of WP:STALEDRAFT and the reason it is not going to be moved to article space is the same reason Articles for deletion/List of film crossovers deleted List of film crossovers. The keep claims made two years ago in the January 2009 MfD has not held true and have not been acted on. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A draft that is being worked on is not stale. Had it not been touched since 2008, that would be another matter, but even so, when it's substantial it can be  worth seeing if anyone else was interested. There is no time limit on improvement. If people take many years to write something, and the result is good, I see no problem.   DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Robofish Someone65 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DreamFocus. The user is still involved with Wikipedia and says she is still working on the draft. I don't see the harm in leaving this page alone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. This page was nominated for deletion in 27 January 2009; it had not undergone an expansion since 20 March 2008, ten months prior to the first nomination. The intervening edits mainly disambiguated a number of links.diff of changes The MfD was closed as keep on 3 February 2009. Since then, these are the changes that have been made to the page. Two years later, the only improvement is the addition of this source, an unreliable blog.[ note 1 ] The page mainly uses citations from two websites. The first is IMDb and the second is Poobala.com. IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source. Poobala.com appears to be a self-published unreliable source. The userspace draft, if moved to the mainspace, would be deleted for violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The page cites no reliable, scholarly analysis about the crossovers. The heavy reliance on unreliable sources such as IMDb and Poobala.com—and the lack of reliable sources that discuss the crossovers—makes it unlikely that the page, will survive in the mainspace. This page was created on 8 March 2008. Nearly three years have passed, and the page is still not ready for the mainspace. The current content violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. WP:STALEDRAFT states (my bolding and italics): "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these).'" I appreciate that Lady Aleena has spent much of her time and efforts laboring on improving this interesting page, but little work has been done on it for over two years. Enough time has, in my opinion, been given for this page to be crafted into one that it is fit for mainspace. If Lady Aleena wishes to continue working on this content, I recommend finding a website from Alternative outlets. Note 1.  ^ http://tvseriesfinale.com/privacy-policy/ states: "Restriction of Liability: TVSeriesFinale.com makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this website and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omission in the contents of this website."  Cunard (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I count 17 edits within the past year, with the latest being just two months ago. Asserting that such is "indefinite" does not compute. Collect (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of the edits within the past year are of this nature. They do not address the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues raised in the previous MfD: "*As interesting as the article is, I must agree with the nominator that the article is entirely synthesis of sources, and would require a fundamental shift in focus to be appropriate for an article; it would also need non-iMDB sources. Because the very nature of the article would need to be changed, keeping this content is pointless: it needs to be written from scratch. Since the content is not going to become an article, the page is being used as a webhost. Lady Aleena can take the content and work on it offline, of course, but Wikipedia is not for hosting things that are not related to the encyclopedia. So it should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ...it's not entirely the sources you are using; it's the point you're trying to make with the sources. You are trying to create an original thesis using a synthesis of sources, namely, that a number of shows are indirectly a crossover with I Love Lucy. If you or someone else comes out with a book that states this thesis, fine. Otherwise, it's unacceptable to use Wikipedia to advance your own original hypothesis, which the idea that Bennet has four sisters or Munch appeared on seven series is not. Redfarmer (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)"
 * If there was a possibility that this content could be merged to Fictional crossover as cited below by, I would support retention. However, a merge is improbable because of the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read our article on Tommy Westphall? The common-fictional-universe-as-a-result-of-intertextuality is not exactly an original idea at this point.  Jim Miller  See me 03:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: in expansion of my above 'delete' !vote, I would like to point out:
 * That there is no requirement that a draft exist unchanged for WP:STALEDRAFT to apply -- only that the draft be on userspace "long-term" or "indefinitely".
 * This article has to stay on userspace indefinitely because it is fundamentally unfit for mainspace. The purported "chain reaction through the television world that still continues today", that is its subject is pure WP:Synthesis -- "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". As such it would never survive AfD on mainspace.
 * Nothing has been done to the draft, since its last MfD nearly two years ago, to even attempt to ameliorate or mitigate this fundamental flaw.
 * I see no reason to retain INDEFINITELY a draft that IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A LEGITIMATE ARTICLE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. But not every article you don't think is legitimate, and vote to delete, ends up being deleted.  If this article was moved to mainspace I believe there is a fairly good chance it would survive.  You can not delete someone's working draft simply because you don't like it.   D r e a m Focus  12:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And that is an ad hominem fallacy -- impugning the arguer, rather than finding any legitimate fault with the argument. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You say its not a legitimate article, while others disagree with you. You can not erase someone's working draft simply because you believe it'll never be a legitimate article.  Drafts don't have to prove themselves notable to survive.  As long as people are still working on them or will certainly do so in the future, let it be.   D r e a m Focus  13:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I say that its stated subject is WP:Synthesis -- you offer no evidence to the contrary. I point out that drafts on userspace "long-term" or "indefinitely" are subject to WP:STALEDRAFT -- you offer no policy-based rebuttal, merely assertion. A WP:CONSENSUS can most certainly "erase someone's working draft" -- when it shows every sign of remaining on user space I_N_D_E_F_I_N_I_T_E_L_Y. I am simply providing reasons why such a consensus might see a policy-based reason for doing so -- that is what MfDs are for. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So basically, if that sentence were changed to say "Since that first crossover episode by Desilu studios,source many other television producers have used the technique for cross-promotion or introduction of new shows.source", it would no longer be a problem. If your contention is that "chain reaction" is synthesis, then such a change should make the article acceptable for main space. It seems a relatively simple change that can be made through normal editing.  Jim Miller  See me 14:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would most probably change from being a WP:SYNTH-tree of crossovers to being a random/WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of crossovers. The problem is finding a non-synthesis criteria for including crossovers. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Colonel Warden found a reliable source covering an item of this common phenomenon. I'm not convinced the subpage could sustain a stand-alone mainspace article, but some of its content could improve Fictional crossover. In addition, per WP:DEADLINE, the primary author appears in good faith to still be here but primarily taking an extended sabbatical (notably in the last year, according to her contributions). Since the content could be useful to the encyclopedia, I see no need to delete it. MeekSaffron (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source in question mentions John Munch and that "every once in awhile, a character from a cancelled TV show pops up on another series", but nothing about I Love Lucy or that "it started a chain reaction through the television world that still continues today". It therefore provides no WP:RS basis for an article documenting the purported "same shared reality due to spin-offs and crossovers". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting wholesale merge of the content (re: Cunard). I'm less skeptical of the "shared reality" after reading two of Jim Miller's sources, the Paley Center for Media source he noted above and the SlushFactory article. The site has since been merged into UGO's official comics channel, which speaks for its reliability. In addition, Jim's book source provides some basis for crossovers being a larger marketing phenomenon and spawning new series. These demonstrate that the topic has potential either as part of the Fictional crossover article or as a spin-off. Some fictional crossovers are notable and can be reliably sourced. While such sources are not present in the userspace draft, the information is. I support Jclemens' argument, that it can aid Wikipedia and serves no purpose to force the content elsewhere. MeekSaffron (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of these sources are suggesting the programs are "part of the same shared reality", merely that they have a few (very limited) crossovers, let alone that the "shared reality" is even close to being as extensive as this page suggests. Use of primary sources to 'fill in' gaps (interpolation) is acceptable, use of them to extend ideas (extrapolation) well beyond what the secondary sources were explicitly stating is unacceptable WP:Synthesis. In this case, the synthesis is often very slender -- e.g. use of the same brand of fictional cigarettes is more likely to indicate a shared props department, or similar, than an explicit intention to place the programs as "part of the same shared reality". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first two sources, which are secondary and reliable, do focus on the programs sharing a fictional reality and list numerous crossovers. They wouldn't support an entire article, but they suggest the potential for a valid topic or subtopic, which this draft could help form. "All of them are interconnected in a roundabout way by the fact that a performer from each show appeared on another playing their famous character from their regular series." "For the purposes of our demonstration, we postulate that any TV show that shares characters with another series is in the same universe as that series." MeekSaffron (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I said it in February 2009 and my stance has not changed. If anyone takes the time to look at Cunard's post above and the links it says it nicely. As Canterbury Tail said in March 2008: If you want something like this on Wikipedia you should read WP:OR, as it seems like the entire article is simply original research, conjecture and supposition with little basis.. Baseball Bugs summed it all up nicely as well: This is sounding like it needs to be lumped in with "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". Cunard posted a link to the diffs from 2008 and now, so take a look. Even the "article" creator said, at the first MFD, I know that it is far from ready due to the lack of any better sources. I am hoping that some other editors would be willing to help me find them as I have reached the limit of my search capabilities. So even if you ignore Cunards link than compare the diffs from January 27, 2009 until January 27, 2011: Two years of edits and the edits are hardly what most would call major edits, major work, or even additions of "better sources" as the author requested. Nor do these edits address repeated talk page questions of Synthesis and OR, or even the issues raised at the first MFD. If all the "keeps" here, and at the last MFD, feel this article is truly not a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" scenario and has addressed issues raised since 2008 by many editors than move it to main space. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am dense, but Six degrees of Kevin Bacon is a perfectly valid article about a clearly notable subject, so I am failing to understand the comparison. But my "keep" is primarily related to the idea that a working draft should have as much time as its primary author needs to bring it to a valid condition for mainspace. As long as the editor has not left the project, DEADLINE should prevail. I pointed out sources above (unused in the draft so far) that contribute to the notability of the topic, so I fail to see the need to delete an editor's work. What I do see is a lot of IDON'TLIKEIT calls to delete without doing any research as to whether there are sources. If I can find them with a google search, then they cannot be completely lacking. The "common universe" is not OR according to the Paley Center for Media, so why the rush to deletion?  Jim Miller  See me 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: So if you feel this should be called "Six degrees of the 'I Love Lucy' show" rather than "Crossovers" than rename it and move it to mainspace as such. I wouldn't call 2008 - 2011 a "rush to deletion" any more than I felt 2008 - 2009 was a "rush to deletion". Again, compare the diffs and read the talk page. What I see is a lot of "I like it" comments in various locations followed with variations of "but this is OR" comments. That is not the same as "I don't like it." If every single Wikipedia user wrote their own articles and created their own lists in userspace under the guise "someday it might be an article" than Wikipedia starts to become more of a personal web host or blog with each passing day/week/month/year such userpage/s stay. One of the "keep" arguments in the first MFD was that MFD's were an "invasion of privacy" and the closing admin called that a valid "keep" argument. The closing admin, when questioned in "private" and in a DRV, never pointed me to *any* Wikipedia policy (or even a guideline) that states MFD's for items in user space are an "invasion of privacy" - and while no such claim has been made here I always keep that comment in mind because it shows the extreme some go to in order to ignore policies such as What Wikipedia is not. Can you, or anyone, honestly say that every single one of these, which includes User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers2 (not touched since 2008), User:Lady Aleena/Media franchises (untouched since 2008), User:Lady Aleena/Genres (untouched since 2008) or User:Lady Aleena/Films (untouched since 2008) are valid mainspace articles/lists in the works and not any violation of policy? And if Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site does not apply in a case like this simply because "the editor has not left the project" the policies section/s and related guidelines should be changed/reworded or removed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct - if you dislike a policy, work on a consensus to change it. Meanwhile the topic is sufficiently notable for userspace (where notability is not, in fact, required) and such cites as,  demonstrate that the consept of "crossover series" is a well-known concept.  Collect (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: You bring up a very valid issue in the reply - "the topic is sufficiently notable for userspace (where notability is not, in fact, required)." The problem is with that frame of mind is that you fail to take a look at the history of the "article" and related comments on the "article" that say it would never pass in mainspace. If that is the case, and if What Wikipedia is not is a valid policy and User pages is a valid guideline based on that policy, this makes this article subject to deletion for not following/meeting the policy and related guideline. Go back to the first MFD and read it over. This includes your comment that, for the most part, was "userspace has no set time limits", yet you ignored some facts then, and now, which is that userspace *does* have set time limits for certain material. Ched, a noob at the time, said "I can't find any policy or guideline this violates", which somewhat echos your opinion - except you weren't a noob. Galatee said "It is an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, and if her and others' effort is successful, could provide a useable article." Kww said, two years ago, they were "willing to let this one bake for a bit" and left explicit directions - "you really need a graphic to illustrate the inheritance chain, and you need to dump the reliance on things like "Morleys" cigarettes." In looking over the edits for the last two years and comparing the editors to all of those who voiced a "keep" two yeas ago I do not see any edits from Collect, Ched, Galatee, Balsa10, MGM or ArcAngel. KWW had backed up what they said at the time by saying now: Yep, time to go. No progress towards making a viable article So if the other editors who felt (and still feel) so strong about this being a "keep" why not take the time to clean it up and take to mainspace. Although ArcAngel now feels that It seems plenty ready enough at this point in time to move to mainspace. So do it than. On the other hand my question at that time, and still is now, So I am asking you all to clearly define the words "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent content". Or, to word it as Redfarmer has, "No one has yet to define how long this should be given. It has already been given a year. How long do we let this exist?" It has been two years since Redfarmer asked that question. The feeling by some that "here is no time limit to these things" is not reading the policies or guidelines, or, if they are being read, not grasping that phrases such as "should not be used to indefinitely host" and/or "Some content may not be kept indefinitely" do impose a time limit. As does the acceptable "Short term hosting" for an possible article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! Talk about OR and SYNTH. The guideline says "indefinite" and "long-term". If there was consensus for a 2 year time limit, then the guideline would say so. It doesn't. "Indefinitely" means exactly what it says - forever, without hope of notability. Sources have been provided to show that "never" cannot be applied to the notability of the subject, so we are only left with the idea that this draft might be considered "long-term" storage. WP is not even a long-term project yet at its meager existence of 10 years. There is no time limit. That's what the guideline says, that is what we present to editors, that is what we are obligated to live up to. If you believe that there should be a fixed time limit on user drafts, please be bold and add it to the guideline. We will see if consensus can be achieved on setting a deadline for the free work of voluntary editors. The time wasted on this ridiculous policing of someone's user space could have been far better spent doing something productive (or noindexing the entirety of userspace!). This is destruction for the sake of destruction. There is nothing noble, beneficial, or helpful about this entire procedure. It has simply belittled and denigrated the contributions of a valuable volunteer.  Jim Miller  See me 21:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: I understand the "HA HA" type of comment you make, however if you took time to look around you will find MFD's that go against what you imply. Also you will find many discussions in various locations about defining, in better terms, the words "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent content" or even "short term." I have participated in many of these discussions. Also you seem to be overlooking a fact - There is no deadline is an essay, it holds less weight than a guideline and far far less weight compared to policy. I could say delete the junk is a policy/guideline and say that after three years this article has failed to truly find "people interested in improving them [it] according to Wikipedia policy" because, after all If you are not willing to take responsibility for improving the articles you gaily vote to keep, then you are making the jobs of the people fighting these gardens all the more difficult. However that too is only an essay - not policy or a guideline based on policy. Despite what you suggest the policy in discussion here does not say "There is no time limit", nor does the related guideline. Your comment suggesting otherwise is based on an essay that is oft times misconstrued as a policy or a guideline. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in user space. It is very much taboo to go around editing, moving, or changing user pages. I would not do so, nor would I appreciate others doing so to my works in progress. I have had it happen when a well-meaning user decided to move an article from my sandbox to mainspace. At the time (and still) there were parts of the article that were not even complete sentences. You want to use a badly-worded, poorly thought out, and terribly implemented guideline as justification for deleting the work of a volunteer. Where is the gain to the project? I will restate what I said in my original comment to keep - demonstrate the actual harm to the project, or leave it alone. If there is no harm, there is no foul.  Jim Miller  See me 23:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy line break
(<--outdenting)

The beginning of that sounds like the invasion of privacy argument Soundvisions1 discounted in the first MfD. However, I think just like "if you took time to look around you will find MFD's that go against what you imply" (Sv1 replying to Jim Miller's "destruction for the sake of destruction" related to the essays TIMELIMIT and DEADLINE), there's a certain amount of truth in user space belonging more to that user, just as a user may delete almost anything from his/her own user talk. From the Userpage guidelines, "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. [...] if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." Jim and I say it's not disruptive by existing, which Sv1 and the others disagree with because it hasn't been substantially edited in years.

The userpage guidelines on what is allowed includes "Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages) [...] Drafts being written in your own user space because the target page itself is protected, and notes and working material for articles (Some content may not be kept indefinitely)."

Indefinitely is the crux of the disagreement. The delete !voters say 2 years, the keeps say something that is irredeemable. (And some of the deleters believe this is irredeemable.) I don't know what "some" means, but I'm guessing it means to apply common sense. What that is also divides the two parties.

I believe Lady Aleena's draft has potential (the same essay as WP:TIMELIMIT), and that it doesn't violate the policy WP:NOTBLOG, as it's relevant to the encyclopedia. The sources above demonstrate it's not pure WP:OR and that it can be edited to not violate WP:SYNTH before moved to mainspace.

TL;DR idea: Since it's not disruptive except that it hasn't been edited recently, would anyone agree that blanking is okay, keeping the history, until Aleena is ready to work on it substantially again? I've seen that done for other MfDs for abandoned but nonoffensive content if the user returns. This could be a similar compromise. That way it's "gone" but retrievable without admin help to undelete. MeekSaffron (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: First, thank you for the thought out reply. I can better understand why you feel the way you do. As such let me make a far more detailed reply to you in order to explain what I see. Your stance is based on a few thoughts - the first being that user space belongs to the user and the second is that one word ("disruptive") is what applies here. If that was it than I could see, and most likely support, the concept of "keep." However I, at least, never felt this article was "disruptive" so nothing I have said is based on that. And I know that policy and guidelines do not say userspace is "private" or off limits. As such my discussion has always been based on looking over the article (the fact it stated it was/is meant to be an article about I Love Lucy and it's spin off shows), the talk page, and related policies and guidelines. Because of *what* this is - something meant to be in mainspace - policies such as No original research should come into play. (I would also like to point out that two years ago there was not a shortcut for a "fake article" that went to User pages, namely that section entitled Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages. Even if the end result is that same as linking to "stale draft" the face value implication is different. That is why reading the underlying link/s aids in understanding the "why", because this is clearly not a "fake article", however the section the text shortcut links to *does* apply. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion reads very clear to most, although the issues of how to define "indefinitely" and "long-term" come into play)


 * None of the "delete" opinions are really saying (or have really said) this is a disruptive article. The first concept is that, after now three years with very little change done to meet (repeated) concerns raised on the talk page, this appears to not be following the guideline that says "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles" is acceptable and, again, it ignores that "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles." The "keep" opinions tend to fall back on a thought that there is no guideline that oversees such content, but there is.


 * A good point you do bring up is that Ownership and editing of user pages says that there is a "wide latitude" given to "users to manage their user space as they see fit." However that is just one small section. "They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user" is also an important sentence, and the driving concept of why the What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically the Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site section, is broken down even further in User pages. The guiding policy says that "Wikipedia pages are not: 1. Personal web pages." Even more specific, the same section of the same policy says: Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. The guideline breaks it down more, the opening paragraph even links right back to the policy and adds on Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies. This comes back to Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages and Ownership and editing of user pages (which should automatically discount any form of "invasion of privacy" opinion/s) The latter says This section applies to all pages within your user space and indicates that pages "exist to make collaboration among editors easier." As it relates specifically to this article it's creator actively sought out editors at various projects to come and edit/help with the article. On March 16, 2008 the article author posted at the top of the talk page this message: The purpose of this article is to bring together all of the series which are part of the same shared reality through spin-offs and crossovers. I am hoping that by bringing this to the attention of all of the relevant series will bring others to help make this a good article which can be placed in article space upon its completion. Please help me get this right. - Thank you User:Lady Aleena


 * Taking all of these things into account there is clearly no "invasion of privacy" issue or "own" issues. This not some buried and lost userspace subpage that was/is targeted - it is something that was widely posted about by the author as a proposed *mainspace* article. It is 100% applicable to look at any such material and apply polices as it would apply in mainspace and than note, as has been done, "this is what needs fixing". If you compare this to, say, List of television spin-offs there is a clear difference. That article/list helps to define what a spin-off is and presents a list of such things. I am fairly certain is someone added I Love Lucy and than The X-Files under it it would be removed fairly quickly. User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers lays out a scenario where the "same shared reality due to spin-offs and crossovers" allows that "an item that appears in various series, and so much more" makes The X-Files a spin-off and/or a crossover. Beyond the obvious, and real, I Love Lucy spin offs and crossovers, much of this article contains what may be considered in jokes and homages made by the writers, directors or other creative forces, but even that becomes original research without the information required. The content policies need to be looked at and considered and if this article can "show that it is not original research" by showing it to be "attributable to a reliable published source" than the bulk of this discussion would change. This is not a general article about crossovers or spin-offs, we already have articles on those, this is an article specific to the TV show I Love Lucy and that specific shows crossovers and spin-offs.


 * As for the blanking suggestion. If that is what a wider consensus is than so it must be. I would not say it fully resolves the issue however, and even the author could not request deletion because others have now made edits. My personal feeling is, as is, based on the past history of this - delete it.


 * I would also again, echo what was asked at the last MFD. Let all those who have voiced a "Keep" to define, for once and for all, how "long" this should be kept. "Forever" is not going to cut it because "forever" is not part of the policy or guideline for such material. Nor will "keep it indefinitely" because that is not taking anything into account and leaving off the important "not a free web host" and the "should not be used" lead ins. To be clear - define this: Does three years fall under the accepted "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles"? Or, based on a full review of the articles talk and history, is it now leaning towards the unacceptable "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles"? At least one person who participated in the first MFD has now said they feel it is ready for mainspace so that too is an option. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you also, for your well laid out reply. You and the other !delete voters make good points too, even though I lean towards keep. I'm afraid I don't have the time or brainpower to reply to every point right now, but I can reply to two of them. 1) By disruptive, I meant that people feel WP:STALEDRAFTs are disruptive. Certainly many are deleted at MfDs. But while I don't have any examples at hand, I believe I've seen some blanked because they're non-offensive, show potential and the user is inactive but may one day return. 2) ArcAngel and DreamFocus both believe it might survive in mainspace, so that is indeed an option. I disagree, as the draft's sources are plentiful but I believe nonreliable. However, I might be wrong, or it might encourage short-term improvement. MeekSaffron (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The OR and SYNTH issues mentioned above would, in my opinion, result in a delete at AfD if the page were to be moved to the mainspace. The page is pure OR and SYNTH in that it solely uses unreliable sources to reference facts and then relies on synthesizing those facts to advance a position based on those sources (that I Love Lucy "started a chain reaction through the television world that still continues today"). If an article about I Love Lucy spin-offs and crossovers—the "tentative title" of the page—were to be created, it could not rely on any of the content or the sources, nearly all of which are IMDb and Poobala.com pages. Since this content is unusable in a Wikipedia article, leaving it indefinitely blanked would violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. I therefore support deletion over blanking or moving to the mainspace. However, since other editors disagree about the article's suitability, a move to the mainspace to have the community's input on whether it violates Wikipedia policies is a valid option under the closing admin's discretion. Cunard (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2011 (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.