Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Seek out the truth/The Kevin Trudeau Show




 * 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.

User:Seek out the truth/The Kevin Trudeau Show
No activity for seven weeks. Sole contributor's sole non-deleted contribution. Apparent recreation following Articles for deletion/The Kevin Trudeau Show. Already mentioned at Kevin Trudeau. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If the user was working on the article, trying to improve it so it meets the notability guidelines, then I probably would be inclined to allow them to continue. But because the user did nothing but recreate an article deleted after an AfD discussion in his userspace, I say delete. If the article had been recreated in the mainspace in this manner, it would be speedily deleted per WP:CSD. What we have here is a form of gaming the system. Seek out the truth's actions may not violate the letter of policy, but they sure violate the spirit of it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparent userification of material not allowed in mainspace, but clearly allowed in userspace, where "notability" is not required. (The deletion was heavily made on the basis of "notability"). Collect (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Collect, are you arguing that articles deleted after an AfD discussion may be recreated by their authors in userspace and then left there forever? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the WP:FAKEARTICLE guideline comes into play, as the page is apparently abandoned. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment September to November hardly qualifies as evidence of abandonment, to be sure. Under two months. Collect (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With no activity anywhere from the user? I disagree that seven weeks is not long enough in this case, but am fine if you prefer a longer standard. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggested 6 months in the past -- as many users (even now major active admins) have had hiatuses of that length. Some even longer.  Damage to WP by delaying? Nil. Potential damage to WP by premature action? Loss of new editors.  Note, in fact, that WP has had a loss of active new editors in the past year. Collect (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep 6 months is the barest minimum. given the high proportion of our writers who are students at some level, it has to be longer than at least one full academic term. I see the irregular working patterns of some very good contributors, and there are many who continue after a gap of a year of more. We have no deadline, and incomplete material of this sort does not harm. I would suggest a basic time of 15 or 18 months before we consider something abandoned. If in the meantime someone takes that material and develops it separately, all the better. This material in user space is also under a free license and anyone can use it.    DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 22 November 2009 (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.