Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Matt Campbell/2020

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. Daniel (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matt Campbell/2020

Fails WP:FAKEARTICLE; such content is not allowed in userspace. Matt Campbell has expressed his displeasure with the editorial decisions in year-based articles and therefore began to host his own versions here, with no intention of transferring his work to mainspace. Elizium23 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't kept in the userspace to improve the article, but as a way of bypassing consensus on the year related talk page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find that all his other year-based articles had been {{db-u1}} already. I thought this would be a multi-nom. Elizium23 (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you before i only deleted the other ones because they were really as important, except for 1. Matt Campbell (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable leeway for a productive Wikipedian. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SmokeyJoe. Reasonable list of some sort maintained by an active Wikipedian who has made substantial contributions. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good window into an alternative way of doing things. Could be the direction we go in mainspace, at a future point. Abeg92contribs 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abeg92. I don't quite agree with SmokeyJoe, out of concern that !vote is a little too 'special privileges for regulars', but I see where he's coming from. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: WP:UP#OUP -- Users with a strong editing record and/or most of their contribution edits outside their userspace should be given a little more leeway in this regard than [e.g.] users whose edits consist solely or mostly of userspace edits or promotional-style activity. This is one of the limited cases where such a sentiment holds true in theory and not just practice. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I suspected something like that might be the case by the fact the argument wasn't disputed. Doesn't change my !vote here, but I'll keep that in mind for the future. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from WP:AGF. If a Wikipedian is generally productive, assume that whatever it is that they are doing is at least tangentially connected to the project and an intention to improve it. Wikipedians harassing each other to explain everything they are doing is not productive. On the other hand, WP:NOTWEBHOSTing is not ok, and a rule of thumb is that NOTWEBHOSTers tend not to be serious contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Even less reason to delete than to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2021 (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.