Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Namiba/Africa Muslims Agency

 __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:  Moot Page was moved to mainspace during discussion. Might have closed as "keep" or "no consensus" otherwise. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Namiba/Africa Muslims Agency


This is an old article which was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 and then restored and userfied on the request of the editor who had created the article, on the grounds that "the article can easily be improved". That was in January 2017, and almost a year and a half later the editor has made no edits to the page at all. Whatever may have been his or her intention when asking for the page to be restored, the effect has been to use user space to retain unimproved deleted content, unsuitable as an article. The page would not have been kept had it been left in main space, and had it been moved to draft space it would have qualified for deletion as an abandoned draft almost a year ago. User space is not a medium for long term retention of article-like material which would have been deleted in any other namespace. (If anyone needs convincing of that, here are three quotations from User pages. (1) For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely. (2) Old copies of mainspace articles should be deleted. Mainspace material may be copied to userspace for short-term, active drafting. (My emphasis.) (3) Userspace ... should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content.)
 * The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete could never have explained it better myself Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and per WP:TNT. A quick google search tells me this organisation is probably notable, but article writing requires starting with suitable sources. Reliable independent secondary sources. Starting with the organisation’s website dooms the article to a promotional slant. Do not REFUND, but allow re-creation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." So if you think the organization is "probably notable", then you are admitting that it should be kept and improved, not deleted.--TM 11:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT; do not WP:REFUND, allow re-creation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Too late, old versions used to make a better version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep the AMA is a prominent NGO whose efforts have been covered by the United Nations and independent news sources around the world. I've added three four sources (2 from the UN and one two from private media). As User:SmokeyJoe noted above, this article "probably notable". This nomination seems like an obvious example of not following WP:BEFORE. The sources added were easily available via Google.--TM 11:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT applies. The current draft has been derived solely from the organisation’s website.  That sets the whole style wrong from the start. There is nothing that should be used from this draft.  First, find the notability attesting sources, second, write content based from these notability attesting sources, third, and only third, go to these primary non-independent sources for verification of the hard facts, but not for the context. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close - The author has moved the page to article space, rendering this MFD moot. Either leave it in article space or nominate it for Articles for Deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WP:UP and WP:STALE, and though it may be moot now that this page has been moved to the mainspace, I will still cast an !vote on principle. Active editors may retain userspace drafts for as long as they want, as it should be. The nominator left out "However, the community did not arrive at a specified time duration." There is consensus that userspace drafts should have no expiration date. WP:STALE and WP:G13 allow drafts like this to be deleted eventually should the author depart, which already goes way far enough (too far actually). On a side note, something seems to have obscured to the page history. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Something funny has happened to the page history. current article history shows eight versions starting 12:05, 17 June 2018‎ 57 old versions are missing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Anthony Bradbury. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fix ping. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it got moved to User:Africa Muslims Agency (Namiba moved page User:Namiba/Africa Muslims Agency to User:Africa Muslims Agency: Easily passes WP:GNG) and deleted as WP:CSD Ron h jones (Talk) 12:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed through a history merge. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Namiba moved it mainspace, with the comment "Easily passes WP:GNG", and I agree.  Somehow a U5 deletion happened which I don't understand, but all fixed now.  If AfD-ed, I would now defend it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2018 (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.