Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MrFizyx/songs/List of songs about weather


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep. Clear consensus to let this user have more time to sort it out. Bduke 11:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MrFizyx/songs/List of songs about weather
These are copies of lists deleted at Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. According to user page guidelines, user subpages are "not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content... Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.". In more than 2 months since these lists were deleted, User:MrFizyx hasn't made a single edit to any of them, so I assume they are being kept for long-term archival purposes.
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Masaruemoto 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep these pages are very useful, and I think the author compiled the lists so that he can write articles on these songs. Or if he is not going to, the list is helpful for other editors. WooyiTalk to me? 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the author did not compile these lists, other people did. Masaruemoto 05:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - ZeWrestler   Talk 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep user space is user's, and no one has rights to mess ith it, unless the page is some kind of abuse. `'Míkka 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, user space belongs to the community, as stated in WP:USER (unless you can refer me to a guideline that asserts your "no one has rights to mess ith it" statement).
 * Comment; the above users are apparently unfamiliar with the user space guidelines at User page, and specifically User page. Hopefully there are some editors here who are familiar with the guidelines I'm referring to. Masaruemoto 05:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I hope to see them back--consensus can change. If they are not edited by someone--not necessarily him-- in another year or so, that would be a different matter. Two months is not enough time to allow. DGG (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This does not appear to be a project-in-progress, but rather an attempt to have deleted articles hosted indefinitely. Wikipedia is not your webhost.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Hosting deleted articles is an inappropraite use of userspace. From WP:USER: 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. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Lurker  (said · done) 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from MrFizyx: I should point out that the debate regarding these pages closed not with "delete" but a "mixed" delete/no consensus, with the closer inviting editors to obtain userfied copies.  If anyone were to ask, there are several of these that I'd be willing to let go of via. prod.  I have significantly edited only one of these collections.  I have added an introduction to and provided sources for list of songs about divorce--a bit more work should allow that one to be prepared for mainspace once again.  My vision would be to have a number of these sourced, reorganized, and renamed along the lines of what we've done with car crash songs.  Indeed, I've had little time for the wiki lately, but as long as I or someone has future use for this content, I don't see the problem here.  Keep. -MrFizyx 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The closing admin said I am also more than happy to discuss the restoration or userfication of any deleted list if at least one editor thinks it can be improved to address the "not a directory" and original research concerns raised in the discussion and intends to improve and merge or reintroduce it which isn't an invitation to go ahead and create a bunch of copies in user space. Lurker  (said · done) 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * reply: So you say, but that is, however, pretty much what the closing admin did when I inquired about obtaining some of the pages.  I have edited one of the pages to adress the concerns noted in the debate.  I can't give you a timeline for when I'll adress others, but I still do feel that some of them have potential to be reintroduced per the above.  So what exactly is your problem? -MrFizyx 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem is that this use of userspace goes against the policy cited above. No matter what has been said in past AfD discussions. Wikipedia simply isn't a webhost Lurker  (said · done) 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have assumed that I am using wikipedia as a webhost without consulting me. I don't feel that I am.  I suppose, however, we can let others decide.  Good day. -MrFizyx 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per MrFizyx's comments the user space is being used to improve the encyclopedia by cleaning up and resubmitting deleted articles; there is no problem here.Evouga 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Radiant above. /Blaxthos 07:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is indeed an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, then it should be permitted to remain, as that's the whole point, isn't it? But, whatever reprieve userfication can provide to these articles, it is not indefinite. The user should make some progress in as rapid a fashion as he can manage, or else copy/paste the wikicode to a set of txt files offline. They can still be worked on with testing in a sandbox - then, when the work is done, repost them. I appreciate that your time has been strained, but - unfortunately! - the delete arguments have merit, and you might lose the work you've put in already. I'd recommend that you take steps to prevent that, even if it involves some off-line editing. Best, ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Saving them as text files is certianly an option, but that wouldn't allow me to reintroduce pages with a complete history and instead would make it seem to be entirely my work. -MrFizyx 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Anything more than two weeks without effort to move it into article space becomes a permanent/archive copy. After two months, it clearly is an archive. Archives of private copy of preferred version content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia may be deleted per WP:UP. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 05:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see such a timeline presented in the guideline so I gather the 2 week/2 month statement is simply your opinion. I acknowledged when I accepted the pages that I would not be quick to repair them and was advised that there were no hard and fast rules.  Also, during that time I've given some priority to similar problem pages still in article space.  I'd be willing to PROD some of the hopeless cases myself, but no one yet has bothered actually asking me to clean up.  In my view this nomination has completely ignored the Wikipedia etiquette of assume good faith. -MrFizyx 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User page subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content. You have not use these subpages as a development ground for generating new content, which would include cleaning up and PRODing some of the hopeless cases yourself. Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. No one is challenging your good intentions. It is your lack of action in using these subpages as a development ground for generating new content that put these pages in violation of WP:UP. Page histories are never really deleted from the Wiki. They can be restored by any admin, so that is not a reason to keep these pages. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 06:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sandboxing borderline deleted articles for cleanup/recreation is a perfectly appropriate use of user space. — xDanielx T/C 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, as I am inclined to assume good faith on the part of MrFizyx, and noting that the AfD was contested. --SmokeyJoe 09:49, 7 September 2007 (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.