Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shlomif/Neo-Tech

 __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 as the user has declared an intention to work on it; but if it is not developed within a reasonable time it may be re-nominated per WP:FAKEARTICLE: "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.". JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Shlomif/Neo-Tech


Abandoned draft, not edited for over a year Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why it doesn't belong in mainspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note: this is a page from the main wikipedia space, that was deleted, which I placed below User:Shlomif in hope to revive it in the future. I didn't get to it yet, and it will require a lot of work, but I hope to one day. I don't see why such a page somewhere below User:Shlomif is doing any damage, and I don't see why the things I keep there should be deleted, if they're not particularly defamatory or whatever. Wikipedia deletionism has really gone too far. I'd be happy to include a notice at the page that it is not an official wikipedia page from "mainspace", and whatever is needed to clarify its intentions. Shlomif (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep If the editor has plans, I support a lot of leeway. Space is cheap. I support removal if no activity after a year, AND no assertions from the editor that they plan to work on it. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sorry, but who in their right mind would want to delete a page in userspace? Really, there's nothing better to do than bother to mark for deletion people's private pages? Wikipedia deletionism has gone way too far. -- Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A good closer should not consider this comment at all. There are standards for userspace. You should comment on the appropriateness of this page in terms of those standards. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I missed Schlomif's comment. I agree with Sphilbrick and withdraw my nomination. BDD is right though, userspace is not intended to be file storage and we have requirements for what can be contained it it. Here's the old AfD, by the way.Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination) Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Recommend that deleted content, which includes this non-technical deletion, should be kept blanked during periods of inactivity working on it. No (or little) harm in allowing stuff to exist in page histories, but shouldn't be stored live indefinitely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2014 (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.