Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OverlordQ/Portal of Evil

 __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 move to User:Buddy431/Portal of Evil. This draft has the potential to become an article, as was the case with Old Man Murray; a recent discussion on WT:UP highlighted the importance of striking a balance between the opportunity to preserve the content which can be rendered encyclopaedic and the need to remove that which has no hope of ever being salvaged. In this case, an editor has expressed his willingness to try and improve this draft; should he fail to do, any person will be allowed to renominate this page for deletion per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:OverlordQ/Portal of Evil


WP:FAKEARTICLE. Article was deleted in February, and was restored and moved to userspace in early March. Six months later, no attempts have been made to improve the article for a potential return to userspace, and so it would be reasonable to believe that the intention of userfying was to not improve the article on the subject, but rather to preserve content on-wiki that was previously deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The user only edits about once every two weeks, so how about we give User:OverlordQ a change to respond about his intention. In the mean time keep as not actually harmful and only been there 6 months. User:OverlordQ can restore the file again anyway himself if further editing is needed.  The only reason given on previous restore was userfying. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If OverlordQ wanted to improve the article, he would have made time to go in and do it by now. Six months is more than enough time to do that.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that giving drafts a year is what should be done, generally.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Six months is already very generous. I don't see what difference letting a page languish around for another six months is going to make.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SchuminWeb, I agree with you that six months is "already generous". Six months is sufficient time to revise the draft and move it to mainspace. If there are special circumstances such as a WP:CRYSTAL album from a notable artist that is due for release in 18 months, keeping it for longer than six months would be acceptable. I see no such circumstances here. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice WP:AGF there. I dont care either way, it was userfied along with Old Man Murray since they were related and both nom'd for deletion.  I userfied them so they could be improved, as you can see OMM was improved and moved back into article space.  I saved PoE to let others similarly improve it, but evidently it was not deemed to be worth the work, so saying the only reason I userfied it was to prevent it's deletion is laughable. It also appears that Schumin has a vendetta against OMM and the PoE judging by the deletion history and the nomination history.  Q  T C 22:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So as you say that "it was not deemed to be worth the work", can we count that as a !vote to delete? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By your comment above, I take it that you don't intend to work on the draft. OverlordQ, I will rescind my "delete" vote and support retention if you pledge to bring the article up to the notability standards and move it to mainspace . Cunard (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per WP:UP, which states (my bolding): "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, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Cunard (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OverlordQ states: "I dont care either way" and "... I saved PoE to let others similarly improve it, but evidently it was not deemed to be worth the work ..." Because this page is not being worked on, and because OverlordQ does not oppose deletion, the page can be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to my Userspace, if OverlordQ doesn't intend to improve it. I'll try to work on it some. Buddy431 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between having it in OverlordQ's userspace or yours? You've got five more days until this MFD closes.  Prove to us that you are serious by introducing substantial coverage in reliable sources.  Nothing is preventing you from editing it where it is now, so if you truly are serious about it, let's see some sources.  Otherwise, I see no reason to let another person babysit a WP:FAKEARTICLE for another few months.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to User:Buddy431/Portal of Evil per 's good faith pledge to work on the article. Quoting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago: "the usual WP:STALEDRAFT provisions will apply in the future if the page sits unchanged for an extended period." Cunard (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2011 (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.