Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Molleeb/Pregnancy.org

 __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  If they ever come back they can request it restored. Skier Dude ( talk  00:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Molleeb/Pregnancy.org
WP:FAKEARTICLE; user hasn't edited since May and barely touched anything outside this sandbox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Detele - Per nominator. It should also be noted that the user who authored the article claims to own the website that is the subject of the article although that's obviously not grounds for deletion.  If the author comes back to recreate the article, it can be retrieved but shouldn't stay unless it's being actively edited to be moved to mainspace per WP:FAKEARTICLE.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 05:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is borderline self-promotional spam. MER-C 06:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why the rush? The user hasn't edited since the end of May, just over two months. Not hard to imagine anyone taking a few months break. I don't see WP:FAKEARTICLE applying - the proposed article has many problems, but I don't see it fitting that proscription. I agree that stale pages should go, but I'd like to see a minimum of six months after any contributions, longer if they've been blocked and might return. -- SPhilbrick  T  13:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As OlYeller states, the user says they own the website. It seems to be self promotional, also. MJ94 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Promotional page with no article edits for three months, since userfication. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur that many major editors have left for more than four months without having everything deleted. Precedent has been six months as a reasonable time for userfied material - try then. Collect (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Four months suffice for a promotional userspace draft created by a single-purpose account. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." (mine emphasized) This userspace draft should be deleted for violating WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I further note that is a single-purpose account and not a major editor. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 28 August 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.