Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/List of people who died on their birthdays

 __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. While there does not appear to be consensus for this to be an article, the gathered and referenced information may be useful in other articles, so keeping as work product of an active editor. — xaosflux  Talk 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/List of people who died on their birthdays


Another userspace copy in line with Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page62 and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Buddy431/List_of_people_who_died_on_their_birthdays. All of these are copies of a twice deleted article. Suggest deletion due to WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns. Ca2james (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * delete being twice deleted means there is no reason to host this on WP. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is clearly preparatory to a future mainspace article assuming sourcing emerges. It is cost-free to hold this userfied piece until that eventuality. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As a place holder for a potential future article, this is exactly what userspace should be used for. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ca2 makes an excellent point below, as per WP:STALEDRAFT,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 LibStar (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Just as consensus can change to delete, consensus can change to restore ... but only if people can see what needs to be restored. Once deleted it is not seen by 99.999% of readers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the three copies of this article in userspace had been edited since 2011. It's difficult to believe that any of these copies are for a future article when they hadn't been touched in well over three years - it's more likely that it's a WP:STALEDRAFT. Even if this was a future article, there's certainly no need to have three untouched copies of it in userspace. Ca2james (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consensus can change but there's no evidence of a change in consensus. In fact, List of people who died on their birthdays was deleted again in 2012, after this article was last edited so it seems consensus remains deletion. There's an attribution failure here as well. The contents from this are precisely or substantially the same as what was deleted in 2012 at List of people who died on their birthdays without the proper attribution. G4 requires that content moved to user space must be "for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)" which seems to be the case here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen multiple AFDs that went into ten or more consecutive !votes for keep, only to be deleted on the 11th. There was "no evidence of a change in consensus" for them either, until consensus did in fact change. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Aren't we discussing an article that was actually voted on before it was deleted? Twice in fact? How does that compare to something that does get deleted on the 11th vote? Aren't you proving my point, that there is no evidence on any change in consensus? The fact that you kept a version doesn't prove anything about a change, just that you kept a version of it. Look, what if all these versions were deleted and the contents (with all the edits) were restored into a single draft article at the Drafts space? Work on it together and list it at deletion review within the typical six months AFC kind of window (heck, list it immediately, it has been four years since the last discussion) and we all let the chips fall where they lie. I think Kitia had the best suggestion last time, make it a category not a list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Death on Birthday seems related (well, it's the same). Can it be added here or are we going to wait and see how this one goes? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable leeway for a contributor.  Original research is allowed in userspace.  Reject the two example MfDs as precedent-forming.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep exactly per SmokeyJoe Hobit (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is customary to allow editors in good standing the leeway to use their userspace for working on content that is not ready for mainspace, unless there are mitigating factors such as WP:BLP concerns, which aren't an issue here. Per WP:DEADLINE there's no reason to insist that RAN find sources immediately; when and if sources appear they can be added. The fact that mainspace versions of this userfied content have been deleted does not set a precedent for userspace drafts: userfication of mainspace content is often a legitimate result in an AfD. Any concerns about WP:STALEDRAFT can be easily alleviated by adding an appropriate template (e.g. ) to the page. 28bytes (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to draftspace We allow userspace drafts so that editors can develop their articles unmolested prior to their publication. List of people who died on their birthdays hasn't been edited for almost four years. As the draft's author has clearly lost interest in it, it's only logical to move his/her work to the "Draft" namespace where it will gain exposure and thus stand a much better chance of getting developed into an article ready for publication. Allowing the draft to linger indefinitely at its current location would be counterproductive. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2015 (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.