Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Tim Cotterill

 __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  Deleted U1 GB fan 18:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Tim Cotterill


The article Tim Cotterill was deleted on 4 March 2009 as a result of Articles for deletion/Tim Cotterill. The article was then userfied on the same day. Three preliminary edits were made on the following day, which did not make any substantial progress towards addressing the issues raised in the AfD. Since then, no editing has taken place (apart from adding a NOINDEX tag and changing the format of an infobox heading). The user page guideline says "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..." (See WP:STALEDRAFT.) Userfication is a short term measure to allow improvement in preparation for reuse as an article, and when, after three years, no progress has been made in that direction, it is more than time for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no attempt to improve deleted article. Achowat (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MQS (who passed RfA a few months back) might be gently nudged into perusing the rest of Special:PrefixIndex/User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace and seeing whether he's lost interest in any more of these, as there are several other >1yr stale drafts in there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Close this discussion as rendered moot. Article has been now moved off of the project and exists as a doc file on my computer. That draft space has now been tagged by me with as WP:U1. While I appreciate that JamesBWatson has the time to stroll though others' draft spaces to make determinations that a deadline actually does exist for a mandated improvement of articles, even if someone who intends to improve it has not done even when off of mainspace, it would have been far more efficient to have used the Chris Cunningham suggestion and to have simply asked or suggested I remove it to someplace else. Also moot with the WP:U1, and as I stated at the original AFD, I feel the person can eventually be shown to meet WP:CREATIVE, but for artists who also promote their works for sale, it can be difficult to dig through and sort sources which might appear as advertisements and those actually about the works.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:06, 9 May 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.