Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raktoner/The Word Alive

 __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 delete. harej 08:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Raktoner/The Word Alive
Delete The article The Word Alive has been deleted eight times, and has had three AfDs, all of which closed as "delete". (Articles for deletion/The Word Alive, Articles for deletion/The Word Alive (2nd nomination), and Articles for deletion/The Word Alive (3rd nomination).) A copy was then made at User:Raktoner/The Word Alive, which could have been speedily deleted under CSD G4 (repost of page deleted after a deletion discussion). However, the page has since then been edited sufficiently that it is no longer substantially the same, so I thought it better to discuss it here. Userfication of a deleted article is acceptable for a limited period to allow work on it before reposting it as an article. However, the user page guidelines are quite clear that this is not acceptable as a long-term way of avoiding deletion of an article. It is three and a half months since this userspace copy of the article was made, and I see no sign of intention to return it to article space. The page has a long list of "references". However, looking at them I see that some are links to Wikipedia articles, others are press releases or links to promotional web sites, others are links to pages where The Word Alive receives only brief mention, and so on. Despite the length of the list, most come nowhere near being suitable as sources, and the few that might be considered do not show substantial coverage. The conclusion of all this is that, although the page has been significantly rewritten since its last deletion, it has not addressed the issues which led to its deletion after the three AfDs (nor, if it comes to that, the rest of the eight times it was deleted). Whether or not the intention was to use this as a temporary holding place while the article was brought up to scratch, the effect has been to keep an article after it had been quite unambiguously decided that it should not be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (well, the parts that I've read, anyway. )  Kayau  Voting   IS   evil 09:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It occurs to me that it is worth mentioning that wikilinks to this page have been inserted into at least two articles (both now deleted), indicating that the user page is in effect being used as a substitute for an article. WP:FAKEARTICLE is quite clear: "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom and JamesBWatson.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a bit redundant?  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 02:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My goodness... How did I miss that? :P  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 06:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Effectively userfied material (assuming the same content as the AfD articles) has no reason to be deleted at the 3 month mark - the norm has been to allow 6 months (or more) before getting antsy to remove material not in mainspace. Editor is still around, and has edited this within recent weeks. Moreover, userspace does not require "notability" which means that unless a really solid reason for deletion is given, the default is Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 09:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was first deleted in 2 June 2008. 3 months is the time since deletion of the latest re-creation, but it does not make much sense to say (in effect) that as long as you keep recreating an article so that it is never more than 6 months since the last time it was deleted, you can keep it indefinitely. In addition I am not aware that "the norm has been to allow 6 months". In my experience it varies a good deal depending on circumstances. Certainly sometimes 6 months or more are left, but in some situations I have known userfied copies to be deleted within a few weeks. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states "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. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" (mine emphasized). Because this article has been deleted multiple times and there is no indication that it will be ready for mainspace, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE apply and this page should be deleted.  Cunard (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete For an article that has been deleted that many times, there is no plausible argument to be made that a copy of it serves any benefit to Wikipedia. It is only serving the interest of someone whose goals are different than those of Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't going to help Wikipedia now or in the future. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * 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.