Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zzymyn/Clow Cards


 * 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. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Zzymyn/Clow Cards
Copy of page redirect in AfD months ago, for the third time. Same editor, who apparently refuses to accept consensus, has attempted to undo consensus based redirect multiple times and apparently is now restoring article to use space for use in making new copies under other names. Per WP:User, this is an inappropriate attempt at archiving deleted material and should be deleted. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I am not the same editor from the previously deleted page. I don't really care I was merely using this page as a temporary place to store this page to see if I could improve it. I was under the impression that this type of testing was allowed. zzymyn (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no evidence that the page is in any form of being "fixed up". Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Even though now blanked, I do not see why one day for this was excessive.  As for requiring "fixing up" to be done in a single day, Good tok six days, and WP has a stringent DEADLINE.  This is userspace, not mainspace. Collect (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to fix up. It has been rejected multiple times, and is unlikely to ever be accepted. And this comes right after, while logged out, same user tried to restore the redirected page enough times that he was about to be blocked. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, IIRC, no requirement that articles in userspace even be notable at all.  That this is not ever likely to be a mainspace article does not mean it can not exist in userspace. Collect (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does. Per Wp:User: "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Less than one day is not indefinitely. I am also not the same user that "tried to restore the redirected page enough times that he was about to be blocked". Regardless the issue is moot as I no longer require this page. zzymyn (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. One day (even a month) does not meet any normal def of "indefinitely." There have been several discussions on this -- and consensus on the guideline talk page was not to set any specific deadlines.  Collect (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Considering the page was in violation of WP:USER and has now been blanked because of that, there really isn't any reason to retain it. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:22, 22 May 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.