Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cnm2009/CabarrusNow

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 to delete. Since some of the keeps mentioned "for now" or otherwise suggested giving more time, this discussion may be revisited later. delldot ∇. 18:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cnm2009/CabarrusNow[edit]

Months old "draft" for an article on a magazine that doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. Authored by a text-book single-purpose account, since abandoned. Closedmouth (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE over one month old. Miami33139 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FAKEARTICLE only applies to a copy of an existing article, not to a draft for a wanted article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree. FAKEARTICLE is just a summary of NOTAWEBHOST. Specifically, "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles." We simply do not allow random content in userspace. Drafts are no different than hosting deleted articles, and there is no loophole that allows draft articles to hang around simply because they didn't go through a formal deletion. A draft/deletion rescue that takes more than a month or so to write, or a draft that has been abandoned, is just like a stub article and it does not belong in userspace. Miami33139 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, we usually give people much longer than a single month, but I agree, it doesn't have to be a copy of an existing article to fall under that. It only has to be "article-like". Gigs (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One month is not long enough to call it abandoned. WP:N doesn't apply to drafts. If the draft is hopeless, convince/educate the author as to why. Remove the external link, as it makes it look like promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One month? Try six. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page was created on July 13. That means it's been abandoned for about four-and-a-half months now – not one, and not six. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Maybe it was created by a SPA, but this isn't promotional. Since this appears to be a legitimate userspace draft, I am reluctant to support deletion at this time. Note that WP:N does not apply to userspace drafts. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now 6 months is the standard I usually use assuming there isn't some more pressing reason to delete. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most folks who edit only on one day are "SPA" I suppose -- and a great many major current active editors did a handful of edits, disappeared, and then came back. Absent a solid reason to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 22:11, 3 December 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.