Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ianw655/Anglia adventures

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 I really, really don't think this is WP:BITEy at all, but clearly the consensus is against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ianw655/Anglia adventures

User's only contribution, wouldn't stand a chance in article space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. The article was just created yesterday. I think userspace drafts that aren't any kind of immediate policy violation should be given a bit more time than that to develop. Equazcion (talk) 06:29, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Delete if the user does not return within the week You're going to get told to wait six months to three years by everybody else. Miami33139 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I strongly dislike this kind of attack on a new user. He has done what we want new users to do and tried to develop an article in his own sandbox. How do you know it wouldn't stand a chance in article space? It might well when he adds sources. It is in user space, so he does not have to add sources now. Can we encourage him, rather than slap speedy and MfD notices on his talk page? It is no surprise that we lose editors. I suggest that you withdraw this proposal. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless currently, so does not meet speedy delete criteria, could become an article. The notability criteria are not required to be met in userspace. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I cannot emphasise my vote enough. How would you feel if you were a newbie, you had created a page in your userspace (this is only the second time I've ever seen a new user do this) and someone appeared out of nowhere to request speedy deletion and then an AfD of your article? The article may not survive now but as you say, it is the user's only contribution. It's not as if he abandoned it and moved on to another article. Maybe if Pickbothmanlol hadn't request speedy deletion a mere minute after this was created, it would be stub-class by now. It seems some of us learned nothing from the new pages experiment (i.e. patrol from the back of the list). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the sudden rush of inclusionism? What're you going to do six months from now when this is still the user's only edit? What do we benefit from keeping something that would never stand a chance in article-space? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're proposing deletion of a userspace draft after a day. You had to expect this. Even in article space it'd be given more time than that. Equazcion (talk) 19:14, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment: You have a time machine? Wow. Gimme. I want to go and visit the zombie apocalypse. Seriously, what gives you any impression that this would be the user's only contribution to Wikipedia? It's only been up for a day. If it is his only contribution, I'm willing to bet that the speedy deletion tag one minute after he created a draft of an article in his userspace would be the reason why he was scared off. Yes, it would not survive even as a stub right now, but you two didn't even give him a chance to expand it. I'm not an inclusionist. I'm sitting neutral as far as I know, but I'm leaning very slightly towards deletionism and even I can see this is wrong. If it is the user's only edit six months from now, then fine. Delete it. But until you know for certain, don't bite the newbies. It's not vandalism. It's not advertising. There wasn't even a chance for the article to grow. Please, in future, read Special:NewPages from the back of the list. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Userspace article nominated for speedy deletion at the one minute mark does seem a tad hasty, to be sure. WP:BITE applies. Note one editor on the user talk page states he may have heard of the company (as it is userspace, notability is not required). Does not rationally count as commercial spam, etc. And there is no requirement that anyone's very first edit in their userspace be a full-fledged article for mainspace. Absent a reason to delete, default to keep. Collect (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Nominating a new user's day-old userspace draft for deletion is pure WP:BITE. I concur with most of thejadefalcon's comments above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:08, 8 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.