Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paternal Behavior

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 as WP:OR does not apply to a work in progress in userspace (and will only come into play when said user tries to move it into mainspace), and WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable given the situation touched on by at least two people here: the original article was originally prodded (and that only recently: 23 May 2012) and moving an article to userspace to work on is a perfectly acceptable use of userspace. Not enough time has passed to give the editor time to edit, and deleting this would really smack of WP:BITE. As it should not be the content of the user's user page, I have moved it to User:Paternal Behavior/sandbox to allow it to be worked on. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paternal Behavior

Relisted. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A direct copy of the deleted article Paternal behavior, proposed for deletion as original research. This user page, and the deleted article, are the user's only contributions ever. It is quite clear that the user is simply treating Wikipedia as a free web host. JIP | Talk 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 00:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would WP:AfC or WP:AI be suitable places to house a draft? I agree that this page in its present form seems unlikely to amount to much, and as such have no strong objection to deletion; nevertheless, work has gone into it (and it isn't completely unsourced), which leads me to wonder whether moving it to another namespace would bring benefits. Super Mario Man 01:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userify to user subpage - The page appears to be a draft biography and only has been around since 10 May 2012‎, not enough time for WP:STALEDRAFT to kick in. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is already userfied. Why would moving it to a subbage make any difference? 79.123.76.131 (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - where is the rule that drafts can't be on a root userpage? (less of a WP:NOTWEBHOST vio than the plethora of self-aggrandising GTKY userpages out there IMO). This draft has 7 (badly formatted) references at the bottom, and was edited on 11 May 2012. We should wait at least a year before asserting WP:STALEDRAFT or WP:SPA. --Surturz (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Over 90% of recent edits by Surturz (apart from edits to his/her user talk page) have been saying "keep" in MfD discussions on userspace pages, often with no reason except attacks on the nominators, and at other times with reasons that do not relate to Wikipedia policy.

this is simply wrong --Surturz (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Userspace is not a place to keep copies of deleted articles. The nominator is perfectly right in saying that the user is simply treating Wikipedia as a free web host. 79.123.76.131 (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace is the place to keep recently deleted content so that it can be improved. The original article was only PRODded, it did not fail AfD. If it were tidied up, it could be an interesting article similar to Maternal bond. --Surturz (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Paternal bond. Changing my vote. --Surturz (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host. As for the suggestion of merging with Paternal bond, can anyone really believe that this personal essay/original "research" is suitable for incorporation into an article? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should give it more time before deleting it as a stale draft of PRODded content. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and perhaps maybe an IAR Delete). This is a masse of Original Research and fluff that now hasn't been constructively edited in a month (not to mention that the edits since Userfication have been housekeeping, at best). It also seems a transparent attempt (by what is more than likely a sock) to keep this article out of AFD. If it's worthy for inclusion, request that it be undeleted (which, per PROD rules will happen without discussion) and then see if it can survive AFD. If not, it seems like an attempt to skirt those requirements. Achowat (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:No original research. Because the material is unfit for use in the article space and would be violating the "no original research" policy if merged/moved to Paternal bond, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (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.