Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RFBailey/Halifax2

 __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  keep. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:RFBailey/Halifax2


WP:STALEDRAFT from 2007. This was used to settle a debate that has been resolved. No major edits to the draft since 2007. Wikipedia user space is not for indefinite article storage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unimpressed with TenPoundHammer's behavior in MfD discussions. He has repeatedly been asked, by myself among others, to consult with page-creators where they are still active before posting an MfD nomination. Here, RFBailey is an active editor, with several edits this week, but there is no evidence that TenPoundHammer raised his concern with RFBailey before posting this deletion request. In addition, I see that last year there was a prior MfD nomination of the companion page User:RFBailey/Halifax, which closed as Keep, and that TenPoundHammer was the nominator in the discussion; I think it is disingenuous for TenPoundHammer now to nominate this page without mentioning that fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I just forgot that I had nominated it before. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not diligent in your nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we have a link to the previous deletion discussion? Has the user been notified? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for the simple reason that the nominator showed no diligence whatsoever and clearly made a bad nomination. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The behaviour of the nominator is irrelevant. The page should be kept or deleted according to policy. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not look like a stale draft. As a draft, it is suitable for mainspace. Is it a copy of a random or particular version of a mainspace article? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's already Halifax (former city) andHalifax Regional Municipality. In Canada we have had, in the name of saving money on administration, a spate of amalgamation and gross, confusing renaming of cities and towns.  Perhaps the draft is being kept in anticipation of someone noticing that nobody ever says "I've just come back from a trip to the former city of Halifax", or "Let's go shopping in Halifax Regional Municipality" &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Notice that this discussion will be kept indefinitely even though it is comparatively unproductive. See WP:NOTPAPER.  Warden (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very sympathetic to Anne's comment above. The status quo with Halifax Regional Municipality appears to be an absurd preference of an official name over a common one, so it's appealing to think we could simply have a Halifax, Nova Scotia article that looks like this one. But if this was just a plan from several years ago, WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:FAKEARTICLE are legitimate reasons for deletion. Could RFBailey clarify if there are any future plans for this page? --BDD (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC) —Pardon the redundancy. I suppose I didn't realize STALEDRAFT and FAKEARTICLE linked to the same place!
 * Comment from creator: this isn't a "fake article", but was a legitimate attempt to creat a sensible Halifax, Nova Scotia article, precisely in the way Anne describes. I left the draft behind some time ago when it became clear that there wasn't the goodwill to make this plan work, and I don't have the time to put into this any more.  However, the userspace draft is currently available to anyone who wants to have another go at such a thing---deleting it would prevent that.  It would also create red links in talk page discussions.  There should be a place to preserve drafts such as this, but if they're not to be allowed in userspace, where else should they be?  Given that I did put quite a bit of effort into putting the draft together, deleting it would leave a rather sour taste.  --RFBailey (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per RFBailey. Of course these things are allowed in userspace. No evidence has been provided of staleness. The material remains current. There are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2013 (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.