Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Saizai/Autocoitus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Delete Userpages are maintained as a courtesy, subject to community discretion. Given that the content has been judged unencyclopedic in its present form, and that it has not subsequently been revised, it is reasonable for the community to reach a consensus that the page does not belong on Wikipedia. The discussion below demonstrates that the community has done so. I'll gladly restore the page in the event new reliable sources are adduced. Xoloz 02:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Saizai/Autocoitus

This article is an archive of a deleted and contested deleted page, which the user seems to want to preserve. As far as I know we don't need to do this, when articles pass the undeletion process, they can fully be recovered. As such it's only purpose is to defy the deletion.

• Delete - --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Userification to allow for improvement of a deleted article and creation of a better one to provide evidence for undeletion is standard. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Night Gyr's argument might hold water if the article had undergone modification since it was created in late March, but there have been no substantive edits since then. Couple that with the fact that AFD and MFD both concluded that the article was a disgrace (unreferenced, neologism, etc), and it's probably safe to say that this isn't going anywhere. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Gyr's principle and Zeta's assessment. Deiz talk 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with the above. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The userification doesn't "defy the deletion"; it's not something that even occupies the same namespace as the original article. I want to preserve the links for my own reference 'cause they took some time to find, and to preserve until a new source comes up (i.e. an article in some popular media, since that seems to be what is claimed to substantiate 'notability' and 'verifiability' among the deletionists around here). I fail to see why any criteria of notability, verifiability, or the like should be relevant to a subpage in *my user space*. If you disagree, please point me to specific policies that state otherwise. The material is clearly not illegal or otherwise injurious to WP or others by its very existence; hands off my space please. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 07:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• If you want "your space", the folks at [1] will be happy to hook you up. WP:NOT a webhost - check that policy for more information, hopefully it will satisfy your craving for specifics. You don't have the right to host whatever you like here - you just don't - and this page has no business being hosted in any WP namespace. Deiz talk 07:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And I reiterate that once you find a couple of such sources you can always request the undeletion of the original article. As such the archiving like this, is pointless and with no development it's only use is "to keep this in wikipedia one way or another" --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If you want to keep the links that took so long to find, you could always just write them down or store it somehow on your computer... *Cremepuff222* 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I still don't see a quote of Wikipedia policy that justifies deletion of user pages on the grounds of (or in any way requires user pages to have) notability, neologism, or references, which are the only things that have been mentioned in this MfD as justification for deleting my page. Please show me it. Also, please note that if such a policy existed, practically all user pages would come under it... Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 04:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Further, please show where it gives a timeout for how quickly I am required to update, revise, or improve articles that I am caching in my user space. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• WP:NOT a webhost, and if community consensus at this page decides that you are treating it as such, such pages can be deleted. You'll get it eventually. Deiz talk 06:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ... except that I'm not using it as a webhost. It's clearly not some sort of wikipedia-unrelated personal page. I have those .... on my webhost. :-P Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 08:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This article was deleted over concerns of notability and factual accuracy. To prove those wrong (undeletion), all that is needed are a couple of reliable sources (which you have been unable to produce). The article was not deleted over editorial concerns, and as such it's doubtful that you will actually work on the article in a way that would require such a userfication. In the meantime, I just think it's a bad idea to let this score any higher in google then it already does. It might confuse people who think this is a 'wikipedia-quality' actual article, which it is not. And yes discussion determines if this is a fair userfication, not little detailed rules. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:53, 23 May 2007 (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.