Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nestall

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 keep--Aervanath (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not suitable for a userpage. Uksam88 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The editor has edited in the mainspace, and this may be a draft for a potential legitimate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The content in the user's user page might be for a future article. Versus22 _talk 06:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which article now exists, the user's having moved the context to mainspace yesterday. Joe 18:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even as there may be some tension between our actual practice and the "copies of other pages" section of WP:UP#NOT, it is settled, it is my sense, that a user may maintain on his/her userpage (but not, to be sure, on a subpage that serves no other purpose; we permit a good-faith editor who seem interested in contributing productively more freedom in the preparation of his/her userpage than of userpace) a copy of an article where there is no attempt to preserve content that has been or is likely to be removed from mainspace and where a link to the article from which the text is taken is linked (at least in the history), lest there should exist copyvio concerns (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChanceYoungJr.Robert; the first criterion seems satisfied and the latter is moot—the creator of the version of the mainspace page that is preserved is the creator of the userpage. Joe 18:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a note on the procedural posture: This content had not, I recognize, been placed in mainspace at the time of the nomination, such that it was possible that one might have imagined that it ran afoul of WP:NOT#HOST, and amongst the user's first contributions were those to this text in his userspace, such that the nominator might not have been wholly unreasonable to wonder about the likelihood that the user had encyclopedic aims, but I nevertheless fear that the nomination here was a tad hasty and suboptimally bitey, and I would urge the nominator, who did, it must be noted, welcome Nestall, for which he is to be commended, to be a bit more circumspect in the future, discussing with a new contributor why his/her userpage may fail to comply with our general policies before nominating for deletion (if something is particularly egregious, a blanking before discussing may be appropriate; tagging for speedy deletion should, IMHO and increasingly in the estimation of the community, as borne out a good bit of late at MfD, be reserved for those pages about which an assumption of good faith cannot be sustained [blatant spam that evidences no inclination to meet encyclopedic standards by a single-purpose, drive-by editor; obvious attack pages; and a few other narrow cases]). Joe 18:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Collect (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (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.