Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LordSwad

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: delete. Consensus was split between either deleting or userfying/draftifying. Since the majority of the content has now been merged into Hartshorne, Derbyshire by User:John M Wolfson, there doesn't appear to be any further practical need for converting this into a draft or keeping a copy of this content in userspace. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 18:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:LordSwad

Delete per WP:UP#COPIES, WP:STALEDRAFT, or WP:FAKEARTICLE. User has made no other edits than to create this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete The content and the one source I could reach seems, at least in part, to refer to The Old Crown, Birmingham. The image on the user edited content source is the same as in that article. Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would have just blanked the page, two fewer edits than a MFD nomination and uncontroversially undoable by the editor xyrself should xe ever return to attempt to work on that. I am guessing, from what turned up in the search for sources, that the "Swad" in "LordSwad" relates to Swadlincote, a place to the East of the building, and this was an attempt to draft an article on something the editor knows from personal experience, using an existing article as a template. I have done something a little different with my 1 edit. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Slightly more than 1 edit, now. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stale draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion. Not stale. Coverage of history, there are no deadlines for this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for articles. This is not an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a fair draft of content to me, and if not suitable for a standalone article, possibly suitable for coverage within another article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be moved to draftspace or included in another article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the second part. Does such an article exist? Could it? As for the 2nd part, WP:DUD. In the meantime, there is no compelling reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's at best a content fork and already covered, as I said above. Wikipedia user pages are not intended to house article type content. Should have rally been G13'ed or U5'ed long ago. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content fork of what? This page is not, Never was, never should be, eligible for WP:CSD #G13 or #U5. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Old Crown, Birmingham? Merge and redirect to The Old Crown, Birmingham.~~ —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC). The building is not the one described at The Old Crown, Birmingham. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, Userfy (into a sandbox or subpage), or Merge into an existing article. On the userpage it does currently violate WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So another question: is the building Wiki-notable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be. Is there a guideline for old buildings? In any case, MfD is not for deciding notability questions. Do you still maintain that this is a WP:UP#COPIES violation? Of what? It is not stale, old buildings' histories do not go stale. If you think it is a WP:FAKEARTICLE, why not add {{Userpage}}? I agree that the mage should be moved to a subpage, it should not be the user's main userpage, unless maybe they are claiming that this is their renovated home. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments here for keeping are almost all based on this material being suitable for an article, so notability is indeed in play. If it's not notable, then it will never be an article, and should be deleted. If it's to be merged into an article, what article? Merging isn't a hypothetical course of action, there needs to someplace for it to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is right. Notes for encyclopedic content can stay in userspace indefinitely. To delete thinks in someone else's userspace, you should be citing a violation of something at WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT. This old house could be worth a mention, which for me is easily good enough for a "keep", even if I agree that it is unlikely to be suitable for a standalone article and I cannot name a current article that could include it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have imported quite a bit of the content into Hartshorne, Derbyshire. I hope this helps. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace (or at least Draftify). This is now an excellent draft article on a genuinely notable historic structure in the English county of Derbyshire that reads better than many current mainspace articles! I accept it should never have been created on a userpage, and I'm surprised Victuallers didn't point this out when he removed the categorisation back in 2010. Well done to recent editors who've worked on it. If I was still employed at Derby Museum I'm sure I could have dug out even more sources than the Historic England Register of 'Listed' buildings and Bulmer's 1895 Directory of Derbyshire. In case you folks didn't realise it, the Historic England list of buildings is part of the UK's system of identifying and legally protecting the most important structures in our country (see here). So notability is absolutely no issue for a grade II* listed building, and it already has an entry at Grade II* listed buildings in South Derbyshire. Those two are enough to show notability and this content is 100% worthy of retention as a stand-alone page. If there's still doubt, I'd be happy for someone to move it over to my own userspace (with appropriate attribution, of course), and I'll give it the full once-over before moving it myself. But WP:STALEDRAFT makes it clear good content can be moved over to mainspace. It should then be categorised with Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Derbyshire. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see the content has most been merged into Hartshorne article. Not a bad solution but as LordSwad was trying to do this would work as a standalone article as it is notable. Just don't delete. Victuallers (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2019 (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.