Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bblanc/Magillem

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. Killiondude (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bblanc/Magillem

Over a year and a half, no improvements and is an abandoned draft. Delete Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, disallowed uses of subpages and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Hu12 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor has been on WP within 7 months, so we can not assume he is departed. Material in userspace does not need to meet notability standards, etc. Not SPAM. Not commerical. The material in Magillem failed at AfD for being non-notable -- as such is not a requirement in userspace, it is not an argument for deletion from userspace. The issue of whether it has reached "indefinite storage" without any changes is insufficient in itself for being grounds for deletion, it is in userspace after all. Collect (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Collect, this page hasn't been edited in over one-and-a-half years. You've agreed elsewhere that deleting untouched userspace drafts that are over six months old is acceptable. Have you changed your mind? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abandoned userspace draft of deleted article with promotional overtones. Gigs (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abandoned userpage; 1) User has not edited for over 7 months making it unlikely they will use this 2) The company still appears to fail WP:NN and 3) concerns over promotional intent. Triplestop x3 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on Magillem was speedily deleted three times and deleted by consensus at AfD once. This userspace draft has promotional overtones, as Gigs wrote, and has not been edited in well over a year-and-a-half. Certainly violates WP:SUB and WP:FAKEARTICLE; looks like gaming the system as well. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer blank over delete as it is not inconceivable that sources may yet be found that demonstrate notability, and because it would be better for nominators to blank such pages and only come here if disagreed with. That said, the userpace page looks like reposted deleted material (not wrong per se) but subsequence "improvements" do not include the addition of independent sources, and it retains quite a collection of external links, and so, in the absence of a committment to work on it in the short term, it should be blanked at minimum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator should have posted a note to User talk:Bblanc, preferably something human, but an MfD note at a minimum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deleting abandoned drafts should be non-controversial housecleaning. Miami33139 (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2010 (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.