Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bobamnertiopsis/Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club

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 discussion was no consensus, defaulting to keep. This can be revisited in, say, 3 months if there is no progress towards an article. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bobamnertiopsis/Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club

Nearly 3 months since userfication without any edits. (Not counting removal of deleted images or WP:USERNOCAT changes) Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses criteria 3 says: "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." is disallowed. ― Padenton|✉ 15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, I don't think this content will be receiving more coverage in WP:RSes anytime soon, I think this is a matter of vanity that this page still exists as a user page. And I guess that's not allowed, so yeah, I vote delete.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I have a couple interviews lined up with some WP:RSes really soon.--DrWho42 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing any valid rationale for deletion here. As a Facebook group, they seem reasonably active - and more interested in progressing an encyclopedia than the indestructibly-articled Wikipediocracy are. Sourcing would be a problem with moving this to mainspace as is, but I see no reason at all to delete a user draft like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a userspace page that eventually became an article that went through a protracted deletion discussion with the consensus that RSes may come into existence in the future and as such, it would not be unfair to keep it back in the userspace in anticipation of that possibility. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indefinitely? I'm not sure anyone should agree to that.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: As stated in WP:Subpages, subpages are not for the indefinite keeping of articles that have been deleted through consensus. The consensus was not that "RS's may come into existence in the future." That's just a comment by the closing admin, which is typical with any AfD based on WP:TOOSOON. There is no assumption that they will someday (though also that it won't). ― Padenton|✉ 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cited guideline refers to subpages of mainspace pages, not of user pages. There aren't really such stringent rules about what can exist as subpages in the user space. See WP:UP#SUB. Boomur [☎] 03:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But when I navigate to that page, it says: "You can have as many subpages as you want but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a free web host, please use subpages within reason. (See: Wikipedia:Subpages for more information.) When I then navigate to WIkipedia:subpages, I'm met with User:Padenton's original assertion: this use of a subpage is not allowed. If it was deleted as a mainpage by an admin with the tentative belief that notable sources would accrue in the future, and then they don't accrue in a reasonable timeline, then the subpage must be deleted. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomur:The guideline's mostly referring to subpages of user pages. Apparently, there are no subpages in the mainspace on en.wikipedia.― Padenton|✉ 03:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or there aren't really supposed to be on mainspace non-template articles.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat or Delete Non-RS WP:FAKEARTICLE. Much of the content would be fine for a userpage except that it looks like an article. --Surturz (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat or Keep. As per Surturz, I'd support adding a noticeable disclaimer at the start of the subpage to show that it is not a legitimate Wikipedia article. Other than that, I don't agree that this nomination has much of a case going for it, what with subpage policy. Stamboliyski (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:FAKEARTICLE does say that people can't use userspace for indefinite hosting of articles or article-like pages, but three months is a bit short for supporting deletion on that basis. Abandoned rejected drafts at AfC get six months, for instance. It's not out of the question that this might be developed into a form suitable for mainspace, there were a number of people who made arguments at AfD that it's suitable now. I would support deletion if no improvements have been made six months after it was userfied. Hut 8.5 12:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Userfied article drafts are for things that may eventually become articles, not free webhosting for things that are inappropriate article topics. The community decided against this article at AFD and now we're hosting it in userspace. --B (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.