Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Webwarlock/Nadia Nyce 2

 __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  Delete Several editors have given cogent reasons for deletion. On the other hand, the reasons given by editors arguing for "keep" are: (1) "I am working on it and there is no timeline here" (with further elaborations, but that is the essence); (2) "We shouldn't assume that everyone has their own computer"; (3) "what concern is it of yours if a user keeps something on their onw user page?". None of these reasons holds up. (1) Somewhat more than two years is plenty of time to have made progress. (2) is irrelevant. It answers a suggestion made by an editor in the discussion, but not the reasons why deletion is under consideration; (3) Wikipedia guidelines make it perfectly clear that one does not own one's user pages, and such pages are not for long-term keeping of articles which have been determined by discussion should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Webwarlock/Nadia Nyce 2
This article was deleted per Articles for deletion/Nadia Nyce, and subsequently userfied for improvement. It came here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Webwarlock/Nadia Nyce and the decision then was to keep it to allow further editing. For some reason it was copied into a second user page. However no edits have been made in over two years.  Will Beback   talk    01:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Webwarlock/Nadia Nyce
 * User:Webwarlock/workspace//Nadia Nyce
 * Delete. Userspace is not for indefinite storage of deleted content. MER-C 02:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am working on it and there is no timeline here. Web Warlock (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't made a single edit since November 2008. I suggest you copy it to your personal computer and when you're ready to upload it you can initiate a DRV.    Will Beback    talk    03:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the pages in blanked form during periods of non-editing of the page. We shouldn't assume that everyone has their own computer.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both as abandoned WP:FAKEARTICLEs about an unnotable person. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Will beback. Consensus said not-notable, BLP sourcing weak, and it's had two years and is going nowhere. There is no justification for keeping BLP material like this.--Scott Mac 02:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * keep what concern is it of yours if a user keeps something on their onw user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.35 (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2010
 * The more I think about the more I am thinking that this a bad-faith nomination. So what if I have not worked on it for a while?  I am wondering why if this article has been sitting here you chose Christmas day, when most people will be away from the computer, to nominate this for deletion. Web Warlock (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The rule is to assume good faith. The reason this came up now is that someone else recreated the article in mainspace the other day. While taking care of that I came across the two-year old draft. Webwarlock has made only a few dozen edits in the past year and has a "long wikibreak" notice on his page since April 2008. No work has been done on it since it was userfied. No explanation for why this revision is taking two years to get ready, and no estimate has been offered for when it will be done.    Will Beback    talk    03:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still rather rude to just delete the work of another without at least engaging the other in conversation. What a about a note on my talk page asking me if I am still working on it, or saying "hey, I'd like to delete this, but seeing how it is Christmas and I know you may not be around, I am giving you a week before I do it". We build articles around consensus, working as a community. This is not community building, this going into someones metaphorical back-yard and ripping out plants that you have decided are an eyesore. Web Warlock (talk)
 * We're not here to discuss the etiquette of MFDs. This is the third Christmas that this draft has been in your userspace.   Will Beback    talk    20:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We here are allowed to discuss etiquettes. Etiquette matters.  Editors Matter.  If Webwarlock feels affronted, let's be quick to apologise.  MfD should not be a bureaucratic forum for affronting editors.  But to the question at hand: Webwarlock, it looks like the community will agree that your pages should not exist live, indefinitely, in your userspace.  In the last year especially, the community as represented at this forum, has become somewhat stern that material not suitable for the mainspace should not sit elsewhere where it might be misrepresented as bona fide Wikipedia content.  It is the festive season, but if we gave you another month, what might you do with the draft that might bring it up to a level where the concerns of the AfD might be overcome?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In one month, say by JAN 25, 2011, 11:59 PM CST, I'll either have this page notable enough to have it back on the main Wikipedia space (and up to par for BIO) or I'll delete it myself. Web Warlock (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I support allowing this. I suggest you remove the duplicate page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Web Warlock (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This MFD has been running for three days yet you haven't made even a single improvement to the draft. There are several days left. Fix it up already. Let's see what you can do in four days.    Will Beback    talk    12:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee since you are asking me so nicely why not. Web Warlock (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added two refs, reworded a bit. Web Warlock (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Back now after 3 days of no access to the net. Seeing what else I can do. Web Warlock (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline for porn actors, WP:PORNBIO, list four standards, just one of which is sufficient: major award, several award nominations, unique contribution to the field, or multiple significant mentions in mainstream media. This article still doesn't appear to show that any of them are met. While the additional sources are nice, they don't seem to get us closer to showing notability. I suggest you read that guideline and focus on finding sources which will pass the necessary threshold.   Will Beback    talk    22:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Proper research takes time and now I have an arbitrary deadline thrown at me during a time when most people are away from their computers. I know the guidelines, I have been doing this a long time as well. Web Warlock (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been waiting two years for improvement. Regardless of editing the article, has the subject won or been nominated for awards? Has she made a unique contribution to the industry or received multiple significant mentions in mainstream media? If not it doesn't matter how much time is spent editing it; it still won't qualify.   Will Beback    talk    05:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete both WP:STALEDRAFT states: "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. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That notability has not been established since the previous MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Webwarlock/Nadia Nyce, further strengthens the argument for deletion per WP:STALEDRAFT. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2011 (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.