Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timelord2067/Maree Sole


 * 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 debate was Keep - there is no specific time limit on work in progress in userspace, that's what userspace is for and as long as there is some effort, or at least the editor hasn't abandoned the work, there is no reason to delete, it won't save any space nor is that our problem, editor should label the work as a userpage to avoid any confusion by users. The drama surrounding the editor's claim that the nominator hasn't properly contacted him or her or has been uncivil appear unwarranted but in any case are irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Timelord2067/Maree Sole
The sorry tale of my fumblings regarding this article: I speedied it some months ago and then userfied it, on request, for improvement. Two months later, it had a couple of references, so I moved it back to project space and placed it at AfD, where my hamfisted actions were rightly criticised.

So, it's back in userspace and at MfD now. I've hacked out the copyvio material. It's been sitting for 2 months in userspace. Keep or delete, I await consensus and apologise for my clumsiness. Dweller (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Question how is the current state of the page any different than a sandbox? - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, can't say the article's got much going for it but I really don't see what harm it's doing in userspace. ~ mazca talk 23:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sandbox's should be kept but then again, the user last contributed to it over a month ago. DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is the user working on it? If not, delete it.  If so, keep it.  If you want to work on it, then keep it and put it in your userspace.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blank the page which will render it useless to search engines, but will make it easy for the user to access if he becomes active again and wishes to work on it. -- Ned Scott 07:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep user is active. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this page being repeatedly marked for deleation? And who is making this decision without makeing contact?--Timelord2067 (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dweller nominated it, as explained above - and he did contact you on your user talk page. As to "who is making this decision", decision is made via discussion here by any interested Wikipedian editors - feel free to join in. Grutness...wha?  02:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a userfied page but only if it is Maree herself who has written the article or if there is active editing going on. There's no harm of this being in user space, though Maree is probably of insufficient notability for a full Wiki-space article. This falls well within the user page guidelines ("A user may have... information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth." It is also within the guidelines as to limitations about such information ("A user may not have... excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia"). This is well within that couple of pages limit. If the article has not been written by Maree, however, then this would probably not fall within userpage guidelines, so in that instance deletion would be a more sensible option unless it's actively being edited 9in which case, as pointed out, it's more like a sandbox draft). Grutness...wha? 
 * Followup - Timelord2067 has confirmed on his (I'm fairly sure it's a his) user talk page that Maree is not the writer. In which case my !vote depends more on intent than content - is it being actively edited? Grutness...wha?  11:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I made no assertion that Maree Sole did not help to contribute the artice. (Check my talk page) I can confirm that Maree has made online alterations to what was originally written by me. --Timelord2067 (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As no-one has made contact with myself, the first draft of the page that contained information on Maree Pavletich was instantly taged for deleation. I made contact with User:Dweller who first deleated the page, then responded to my enquiry by creating the page User:Timelord2067/Maree_Sole I was led to believe that this page was somewhere that I could make additions to the article (eg Maree's active invlovement in the New Zealand Space Flight Associiation and their invitation to see a Shuttle Launch as well has her involvement with other New Zealand clubs and charity work)... however I have had no further contact from User:Dweller. I do not see why there is such an urgency to remove this page which User:Dweller created when no contact has been made first. --Timelord2067 (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one claimed that you did. It was, however, necessary to determine whether she was the author or not - hence my comments. Grutness...wha?  08:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dweller clearly contacted you on your user talk page on several occasions to do with both this MfD nomination and the earlier AfD process - notably at the time of this MfD nomination. And as he explained in his nomination, this has been in userspace for a considerable time. Userspace is fine as a place for working on potential articles to go into the main Wikispace (as you put it, somewhere that you could make additions to the article), but they've got to be being worked on - two months in userspace with little in the way of change doesn't indicate any real effort to get the item to article status. Grutness...wha?  08:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll also point out that another user contacted you at the end of April to nudge you to improve the article. I think it's unkind to suggest that I've been unduly hasty in listing this for deletion. It's been knocking around for over 2 months now. This is an encyclopedia - if the article's not yet encyclopedic, you can cut and paste it into Word and work on it until it is ready. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2008 (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.