Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Telex/Serbian Greek Empire


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete, especially in light of the fact that the creator was only here for three days and has not been back in eight months. --Core desat  18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Telex/Serbian Greek Empire
Not encyclopedic. Deleted article (see here userfied in July and essentially untouched since then -- except for the addition of a PROD tag and its removal by User:Alex Bakharev, who seems unaware that WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute or permanent home for not-ready-for-primetime articles. Calton | Talk 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will comment on this and the next two nominations later, but I would prefer that we drop the comment about the knowledge of the administrator who struck the prod. Comment on the content, not on the contributor, and all that. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I would prefer someone would actually read policy and the wording of applied tags rather than seeming to make some kind of point -- and while I'm at it, I'd like a pony, too -- but I guess we can't always get what we want. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I see nothing wrong in mentioning my name Alex Bakharev 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see a point in removing a draft of an article. The user may return and finish it or it may be partially used for a work on something else. I agree that we should not keep userfied articles POV to the point to be offensive or linked somewhere so the such a significant bandwidth or having no potential at all to become useful for the project. I see no indication it is the case. Just as it is now we are loosing some possibility of using a GFDL-text, upset the author and simply loose human resources in digging out that articles for no particular gain Alex Bakharev 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not a draft, it's a deleted page (see the AFD. Except that the user has NOT returned to this in eight months. Except that "POV" is not and has never been the point of not keeping deleted articles essentially permanently by the mere expedience of slapping "User:" to the front of their titles. Except that as a deleted article, it's already been judged as not useful to the project. Except that if the author wants to actually work on it -- which he hasn't -- then he has own hard drive for that job. Except that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia takes precedence over Wikipedia being some sort of affirmation therapy. So other than that, you may have a point. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While I'm sympathetic to Alex's point, this editor only spent 3 days here, in September. So, I think it's most unlikely he intends to shape it up some day. Derex 08:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Derex. That is why I vote to have it deleted. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I still don't feel that userfied versions of AfDed pages should be allowed to just sit there indefinitely because the person might get around to doing it. But in this case, he almost certainly will not ever clean it up, so let's go ahead and clean it up already. -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 16 March 2007 (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.