Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SE19991/Move Management

 __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  no consensus, default to keep.--v/r - TP 00:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

User:SE19991/Move Management


Stale draft and not enough to build an article from. A TNT situation. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - TNT makes no sense for drafts because the purpose is to allow the article to be rewritten better from scratch without vainly attempting to improve the existing crud. This makes no sense at all for drafts, since they are not the main article on the topic. Draft is on a potentially legitimate subject and is completely non-problematic even if not blanked, WP:STALEDRAFT states deletion is only indicated if the page is problematic even if blanked. A2soup (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure the user who only build this page for the purposes of supporting a spam link in Nov 2011 is going to get right on building a proper article. If kept at MfD its going to sink or swim in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a discussion where anyone besides yourself said it was okay to move userspace drafts to mainspace to test notability? Because I see only condemnation of these moves in existing discussions, like this one. A2soup (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:DEADLINE. VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, there is a limit to how long we keep SPAM around here. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. WP:G11 is for spam, but a draft isn't spam just because you say so. VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not a serious attempt an an article. They were careful to put that SEO link in through. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Noindex it if you are concerned. It's called WP:ELOFFICIAL, not WP:SEOLINK. Again, AGF. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Userspace is already default NOINDEX. A2soup (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You might expect an official link on an article, which this is not even an attempt at one. I know a lot about SEO, this was created for that link. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, let's talk shop. What's suspicious about the link? Don't spare the technical details on my account. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the article is not about a company how can it be an WP:ELOFFICIAL link? Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which is all that's here: A dictionary definition of a bit of jargon of questionable relevance. There's nothing to integrate into any other article. It's stale, and appears solely to have been created to get a spam link on Wikipedia (though evidently in vain considering it's not supposed to be indexed). There's no encyclopedic content here to be salvaged. Wikipedia is not a webhost. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mendaliv and per nom. A dictionary definition won't ever be an article so why keep it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dictionary definitions won't become articles, but that is no reason to dissallow recording definitions in userspace.  In userspace, the notes are specifically for the user's purposes alone.  The use of the AfC template tells me that AfC is sucking too much in, the editor was clearly not writing an article, just putting a toe into Wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2016 (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.