Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases

User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases

This article was deleted more than a year ago. It has not been edited since being placed in userspace. Permanent archival of deleted content violates WP:FAKEARTICLE. Miami33139 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Toss it. He's had six months, hasn't done anything with the page. Plus the proper way to present this subject would be in an article, quote database, if it is actually a notable topic. --erachima talk 06:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Either this is going to be turned into a suitable article and sent back to mainspace, or it should be deleted - users can't keep deleted articles in their userspace indefinitely. It looks like the former isn't going to happen, so it'll have to be the latter. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep first of all there is generally a lot of room given to productive users to keep articles-in-progress. I see no problem with this in userspace, though moving to the incubator to get more eyes wouldn't hurt and I'd suggest Tothwolf consider doing so. Secondly I'd say it's pretty poor form to be nominating userspace work of someone you have had serious (Arbcomm-level) conflicts with in the past. Hobit (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • One year is more than enough time. The user has been active and has shown by ignoring this material that they have no way to improve it. I did not say in my nomination that I believe Tothwolf is keeping this in bad faith to maintain alternative formats of content deemed not suitable for the main project. Since you bring up our past disputes, I will be honest and state it in my reply. It is not poor form to nominate inappropriate material for deletion. Using the standard procedures in an open forum is the most low-key, transparent and least combative way of dealing with the disputed content. Miami33139 (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep improvable enough. I see no need to delete userified articles in the workspace of experienced good-faith editors. As for this particular article, I;m adding it to my own list of potential articles for improvement. And, btw, it is very poor form indeed to nominate borderline material for deletion concentrating on the work of another editor with whom one has had past disputes. It comes very near to wikihounding. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Giving a modicum of respect to sufficiently active edors makes sense. I am, moreover, quite concerned about the issue DGG raises - there are enough truly deletable items to find that seeking out one editor may well be a problem. Collect (talk) 12:45, 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) 23:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)