Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jpskidmore/jps IT

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jpskidmore/jps IT

Looks as if it is some previously deleted content moved to userspace a long while ago. The user has been inactive for a considerable amount of time-EMP 03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Don't see any problem with that. Unless pure spamming, users are allowed to move articles pending deletion to own userspace — this can be useful in cases when notability is established later on, or the author simply needs the article as a sandbox for future writings. Michaelas¹⁰ 11:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally agree with Michaelas10, however it's been almost a year and nothing has been done with the material. Garion96 (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've already said it before, but I strongly disagree with deletion on the basis of inactivity. The user has made some good encyclopedic contributions and may come back anytime. Users who decide to take a wikibreak shouldn't worry about the fate of their userspace. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't really talking about the user's inactivity. There was a deletion debate with delete as result, so the article should be removed from wikipedia. However someone wants to have it in his userspace to work on it. For that the editor has a few months, but if nothing happens (by either user's inactivity or simply because the user still hasn't gotten around to it) it should be deleted. Garion96 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Although both the user and page are currently inactive, sandboxes can remain on userspace for an indefinite period of time regardless of them being frequently edited or not, and I don't see any reason why not to treat this as a one. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• To me the point of an AFD with delete as result is to delete the article from Wikipedia. Not to stay indefinite in someone's sandbox. To give someone time to fix the article, yes, but eventually the article (if nothing happens like in this case) will have to be deleted. Garion96 (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to recreation - for a number of reasons, including Michael's comment, I would suggest using prod for these situations. Addhoc 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Addhoc. Deletion for long-term inactivity is fine; if the user returns, and wants it, it can be restored. Xoloz 20:17, 20 April 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.