Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharif aly/Freeware alternatives for commercial software




 * 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.

User:Sharif aly/Freeware alternatives for commercial software
Not a WP:WEBHOST. User space article not worked on in 9 months. User specifically states he is hosting it in userspace as an alternative to mainspace. Miami33139 (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a webhost; furthermore, deliberately keeping this article, which would not meet the inclusion criteria for mainspace, in userspace is a form of gaming the system that should not be tolerated. Also violates WP:FAKEARTICLE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles not suitable for mainspace may indeed be proper in userspace (userfication). There is no policy or guideline which says only material usable in mainspace can be in userspace. Not spam. Not commercial. Not self-promoting. Not trying to introduce any link not proper on WP (bluelinks within WP are generally acceptable).  List is primarily of bluelinks for notable software.  WP:GAME is inapt here. User shows a pattern of being away for 9 months or more and returning - the 8 months current gap fits his pattern.   Absent any valid reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinion expressed that "Articles not suitable for mainspace may indeed be proper in userspace" directly contradicts WP:FAKEARTICLE, which is the user page guideline. There is a set of acceptable user subpages UP which this article does not fit. Further, this page is propaganda and instructive while userspace is not allowed to be promotional for a point of view. Miami33139 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why does AfD specifically state "Then the page may be kept, merged, or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy."? Collect (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sticking something in mainspace and then getting it deleted and userfied does not make it OK to host material that would otherwise not be allowed in user space. Gigs (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a list in their userspace. It is not spam, it is not there to act as a mainspace article (The tag at the top they've made says it all), but as a preservation of a deleted article until it can be made suitable for inclusion. If the editor has been absent for a long period, they have not been sitting on this and using wikipedia as a webhost or gaming the system. The list is solely links to other wikipedia pages. Absolutely no reason to delete this on the person except for politics and sticking word-for-word to guidelines. It is very common for deleted pages to be userfied at the authors request by the deleting admin. This regularly permitted practice also directly contravenes WP:FAKEARTICLE. Where is this propoganda by the way? Where is the rule that user subpages can't be instructive or have a point of view? Many well established wikipedians put up a list of their witty observations of wikipedia; these lists also have a point of view. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The end goal of userfied articles is to be improved upon enough to become mainspace articles. I'm personally not a fan of listy-type articles; ones like this can become a home for every pet project under the sun.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor worked on the article prior to leaving wikipedia in January of this year.contribs A diff quickly establishes that it has been improved since creation.diff -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That it's been improved since creation is not a rationale to keep, IMHO. I do recognize that my feelings regarding list articles may not reflect consensus writ large, but I just don't see that this sort of listspace article is encyclopedic.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to somewhere. Don't know where off-hand.  Alternative outlets may help.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's been long enough. Gigs (talk) 20:40, 2 December 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.