Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clientsuser

User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clientsuser

A deleted article that was userfied one year ago. No work on the article in the last year. This is an abandoned WP:FAKEARTICLE. Miami33139 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC) **I am hope the closing administrator pays attention to the merits of this page, not the accusation about my motives.** Miami33139 (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it is reasonable to keep around an article that might be improved. Still this might be better in the incubator. See also my comments on the other MfD from the same day involving the same folks. Hobit (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is reasonable to keep around an article that might be improved. Keeping an article, already deleted at AfD, for one year without any improvement is evidence it will not be improved. If the article went to the incubator, that would be fine. It would be deleted in one month because there is no improvement to this article that is not already superfluous with other articles. Miami33139 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep See my comment under the next item. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep And also note that active users may, occasionally, neglect something in their userspace for an extended,but not perpetual, period of time. For such editors, it hurts not one whit to allow this in userspace. Collect (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• delete this is a blatant WP:FAKEARTICLE in every way. we don't get to sneak a deleted, non-notable article onto wikipedia forever just by userfying it for perpetuity. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Drawn here from Uncle G's post on the arbitration noticeboard. Not a fan of the crusade element of these MfDs, and I don't see a problem allowing Tothwolf to retain these pages in his userspace. Nathan ^T 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete On the basis that this is simply too long. 6 months is sufficient, one year with no work shows that it is unlikely that anything will be done with it. He can easily keep a copy on his own PC. I wish those who voted keep would have suggested what parameters they think should apply. Do we let all userfied articles sit untouched for over a year? When is it reasonable to delete something that shows no evidence it is going to be an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:29, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Per Dougweller. Enough time has passed t this point. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, 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. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" (mine emphasized). Cunard (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete this borders on abuse of userspace as we are not a webhost. Enough time has passed, if it can be demonstrated that there is a need for this list it can always be discussed at DRV. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: why then did you choose to userify it to your own userspace as User:JBsupreme/List of Internet Relay Chat clients, (and then blank it, keeping the history)? DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you really not know? I think you do. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment A discussion at AN/I has been opened about this and other deletion requests. [1] DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)