Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mlubrano




 * 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   no consensus to delete. delldot  &nabla;.  00:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mlubrano
This page is a copy of the deleted page Kyle Coleman --Pdcook (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A deleted page in mainspace may not always be improper in userpace (see userfication). Unless it is an attack etc. deletion from mainspace is not, therefore, a reason to delete in userspace. Absent a reasin to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I guess my interpretation of User_page suggests User:Mlubrano is inappropriate. Pdcook (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that the deleted page and the user page are the only contributions by Mlubrano. It seems like the user is promoting an unnotable person. Pdcook (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I concur with Collect's assessment, this is pretty much a workpage as of the current time and can remain so as long as the user improves on it. But if months pass by with no work then, I think User_page is a more viable grounds for deletion. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 03:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the user returns to start working on the project. For active users, I think several months of hosting a workspace article is generous. For non-active users who plainly intend to WP:WEBHOST I don't think we owe the same courtesy. Two edits to the project about this bio which was designed, including categories, as an article. I took the time to remove article categories from the user article, and to replace the BIO templates with userpage templates. Miami33139 (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See past MfDs where an established editor was given over three years. Extensive discussion centered on 6 months as a minimum before deletion for others. Collect (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, I don't think that's a fair representation of those discussions. Participation in these discussions has been fairly low, and opinion has been fairly split. There certainly isn't any sort of consensus as to how long an abandoned recreation should be allowed to remain in userspace before it crosses the line and may be deleted. Allowing a page to remain for three years is certainly excessive. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted on the deletion discussion saying 3 years was too long. The consensus was that an established editor has a great deal of leeway. Collect (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now The user should be given a chance to work on the article in order to move it back to mainspace. The relevant AfD was only just closed, and therefore it's too soon to be deleting this page, which is an appropriate use of userspace. If the page is, in fact, abandoned and left unchanged for a considerable amount of time, then I might support deletion. Of course, just how considerable an amount of time is up for debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the pseudo-article is about a non-notable player (he's a walk-on). No amount of work will bring the page up to the standards required to be an article, which I is assume is the intention of the SPA who created the page.  Deserted Cities (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2009 (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.