Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AndyJones/Toupees in popular culture

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 debate was Keep. It is possible, with better sourcing, that this could become an encyclopedic article, or a portion of one. According to general practice, two months is not an excessively long time to have inactive userfied content; the consensus below strongly affirms that principle in this case. Xoloz 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AndyJones/Toupees in popular culture

This has sat for nearly 2 months with no edits. I want to point out User:AndyJones/Deleted trivia. Andy notes "I quite like this page: nicely written and borderline-funny." An article being funny isn't a reason to keep. In my view, this article (along with the others listed at the above subpage) are just being moved to subpages as a form of webhosting of deleted articles. Perhaps something will be done about them someday, but frankly I doubt it. Articles are deleted for good reasons, and shouldn't be moved to subpages to just sit. Lastly, on that same subpage, there is a section called "Summary for an admin to look at, please.", which either has a keep or delete note by it. I see no attempt by Andy to actually contact an admin to look at it. It's possible an admin might come across the page (in recent changes) but other than that: the page wont just get noticed, and the articles will continue to sit with no progress. Putting time limits on things aren't the correct thing to do, but deleted articles simply shouldn't sit in subpages with no progress (except a little note on another subpage). RobJ1981 17:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• In all fairness, he only userfied it two months ago, and I've had cable spaghetti in my userspace for over half a year.

Userfication is usually performed because material is added in article space that is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but not objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof. This can be a satisfactory result for new users unfamiliar with the boundaries of Wikipedia content, and for users who inadvertently create personal templates in the main template space.

• This is not objectionable userpage content. It is not patent nonsense, not divisive, not inflammatory, and - let's face it - it's harmless, despite it being objectionable to say so. For all we know, this could turn out to be a highly beneficial article, given time. But the fact that it exists in someone's userspace, of all places, isn't a rationale for deletion.--WaltCip 20:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Meh. So what? --Carnildo 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's left around in userspace, there's a slight chance it will one day be an article. If it's deleted, there's none. Since we don't save any space or anything by deleting it, why not keep? — PyTom (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep please So what? It's in the user space. It doesn't harm anyone. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a sandboxing dummy, and I think it could be a legitimate article. Weteher or not it is is to be decided at an eventual afd if and when it is created.--Victor falk 09:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Could be made into a real article. Give it some more time. Lurker (said · done) 12:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Do you realize, the subpage is an article from an AFD that was userified? This deleted article storage isn't acceptable. RobJ1981 13:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  I know about this policy, but I haven't read it; where can I find it?

  How so is it not acceptable, besides citing WP:USERFY?--WaltCip 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per my reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter. Yes, this material was deleted (probably rightly) at AfD and is not appropriate for the mainspace; but it isn't in mainspace, it's in userspace, and collecting this stuff is clearly something that the editor in question finds fun. Deleting userspace content makes users less happy, and therefore less likely to be productive contributors; it's also unnecessary, as it doesn't free up any server space (deleted material stays in the archives). Therefore, in any userspace MfD, the burden of proof is on the nominator to demonstrate that the existence of the page harms Wikipedia, and I judge that the nominator has not done so in this instance. Walton^One 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. This user is apparently just storing the article right now, based on his notes at User:AndyJones/Deleted trivia. This isn't appropriate; WP:NOT a webhost. However, this same user has requested other of these subpages be deleted when he no longer wants them. So, I don't think this will be indefinite. I would suggest that Andy download a copy of the page and a copy of the revision history: that way, if he finds a place to submit the page elsewhere he can be GFDL compliant. (Contrary to popular belief, you don't actually have to keep every revision, just a list of revisions and their authors.) Once that is done, or once he is done with it, I trust that Andy will request deletion. Mangojuice^talk 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I know personally that this is part of a project of Andy's and several other editors to save deleted popular culture information with the goal of restoring it in better form in the future. He didn't make the decision on his own (Heck, someone gave him a barnstar for it). I think it's safe to say that despite the lack of recent edits, he has a plan, and to delete now would be too quick a move. He has the good of the encyclopedia in mind. Save deletion discussions for whenever he moved this back onto the mainspace. Let's see what he has to offer. Wrad 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, pro tem. Thanks for the support of various people, above, and yes I will indeed one day either tag this for deletion, or outplace it, or return some or all of it in a fully-sourced form to Toupee. While I'm here, and since there are clearly users who feel strongly about this issue, how about someone running through the "Summary for an admin" column at User:AndyJones/Deleted trivia and deleting the user sub-pages I've marked as deleters, about which I think there's no contention. AndyJones 07:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Next time it might be easier to just mark the individual pages with {{db-u1}}; that would get attention more quickly. Mangojuice^talk 12:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Someone needs to check out Toupee, though, where I see pretty-much all of this material has been restored (not by me). AndyJones 07:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's in userspace and not harming anyone or the encyclopedia. If Andy is done with it, he should request U1 deletion. Neranei (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not harming anyone, and not offensive. So I believe keeping it as it is in userspace per Neranei. Phgao 02:00, 13 October 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.