Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marcperkel/Church of Reality




 * 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. The consensus is that this page, because of its particular history (userfied in 2005, no improvements since then, articles was deleted and salted), violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP. –Black Falcon (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Marcperkel/Church of Reality
User subpage mirroring a mainspace article (Church of Reality) that has gone through multiple deletions and recreations and was finally deleted and salted as per Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Per WP:USER, especially WP:FAKEARTICLE, user space is not be used for permanently hosting material posing as an article when that material has been found unsuitable for mainspace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Given that the subject of this page was recently determined conclusively to be non-notable, and that the page itself has had basically no substantial edits for four years, I think it's safe to say this won't be a mainspace article any time soon. Robofish (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Userspace has no requirement of "notability" nor does it reequire that userpages be suitable for mainspace. That it will not be a mainspace article is not an MfD reason for deletion.  Further, the dang thing just may be notable per   or  "Court of Appeals Harshes Bogus Religion's Pot Buzz"   "Marc Perkel" gets a few New York Times mentions (mainly about drugs). Collect (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: both your arguments are specious. Sure, normal personal userspace content (i.e. content about the user himself and about his views on Wikipedia etc.) has no requirement of "notability" and doesn't need to be suitable for mainspace. But userspace content that is unrelated to Wikipedia, which has the look-and-feel of an article and talks about external topics like an article, does indeed have such a requirement, per the guideline I cited and per WP:NOTWEBHOST: it is legitimate only as a temporary drafting space, not for permanent storage. So yes, the fact that it's not going to become a mainspace article is grounds for deletion. As for the claim that the topic might in fact be notable for mainspace, the community just resoundingly rejected that notion today, and for the umpteenth time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most userfied articles look like articles. I commend you to look at prior MfD discussions thereon. And the comments and results on userfied material. And WP:DEADLINE.   I also suggest you look at Jimbo's userspace. Collect (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Userfied" articles are, by definition, temporary. This one is like what, five years old? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the AfD was just closed today, I would count the userfication count from today. As it appears to get no viewers, it is not really a big deal, and I prefer to ask that positive reasons for deletion be given.  It is not appreciably worse than multiple pages on Jimbo's beard. Collect (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was userfied in 2005, to evade one of the innumerable prior deletions back then. It had all the fair chances of growing into a proper article anybody could have wished for. This time, the AfD outcome was "delete and salt", with prejudice, for the last and final time. The positive reason for getting rid of it is that leaving it there will just encourage people to try and bring it back and waste the community's time over it yet again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the user can host this at his own blog. Multiple AFDs have found this unsupportable here. The latest called for it to be salted. Something may happen at some indeterminate point in the future to make this notable, but given the rampant game-playing and canvassing at the last AFD and a clear agenda to promote this orgnanization on wikipedia (with no regard whatsoever for the inclusion guidelines here) allowing it to persist in the users space (who happens to be a leading figure in this organization) is an invitation to more game-playing.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fut.Perf. and Bali ultimate. Wikipedia is not a webhost. The disruption at the AfD, coupled with the repeated deletions, indicates that this content is not suitable for Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userspace is not an end-run around deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 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.