Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Netrat/United World Chart

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.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netrat/United World Chart[edit]

This is a user copy of a deleted article, intended to allow the user to find additional sourcing and improve the article to demonstrate notability. In three months, that hasn't happened. The only editing has been by one editor that was confused by the sandbox article and thought it was a real article. Normally, I'd be willing to let an article sit for a while if I thought there was a chance. In this case, there isn't one. This is a hobby chart, not suitable for any purpose. As noted on in WP:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, this German-hosted site does have an article in German Wikipedia, whose purpose is solely to inform people that it isn't a real chart. We no longer allow links to this site to be added, thanks to a listing on WP:BADCHARTS, XlinxBot's revert list, and some diligent follow-up by human editors. There are no explicit references to the United World Chart left in English Wikipedia, and implicit references are removed whenever I notice them. It's time to recognize that this article is a lost cause, and delete it before any effort is wasted on it.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I' didn't have enough time to improve this article lately. I'll try to do in 7 days. If article won't be improved in 7 days days, go on. Netrat (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to give User:Netrat some additional time to work on the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not the prime requirement in userspace (else half of userspace would be deleted quickly) buu [1] [2] [3] [4] on their face appear to confer notability on this. Sufficient not to call it a "lost cause"? Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is userfied for improvement, the possibility of improvement is a key criterion. The sole purpose of such userfication is to work on them. Your four sources are passing mentions, by the way. None of them address the issues brought forth in the AFD.

I would like to point out that I think Netrat had and has a good faith intent to improve this article, and I am not attempting to accuse him of wrongdoing in any way. I just think the obstacle of finding sources to overcome the original AFD's objections is insurmountable.—Kww(talk) 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the cites show that a significant number of "reliable sources" refer to it. "Passing mentions" do indicate a measure of notability substantially greater than was implied above. Collect (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no possibility of improvement, as KWW has pointed out, so keeping it in userspace is moot if there's no way it can ever be made into a viable article. Netrat doesn't seem to have been working on it any since its userfication. Anyone who has voted "keep" here might want to read WP:BADCHARTS. Absolutely no sources have given this chart any significant attention, except for spitting out its chart positions, so Collect, do you really think there's any hope of this ever being a viable article? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I find it sufficiently notable using the standards applied to other articles in userspace. 2. Judging whether any given subject will ever be a "viable article" is beyond my ken. 3. WP appears to believe as a central tenet that anything sufficiently notable can be the subject of a "viable article." 4. I find no WP official position that material in userspace must at the same time meet notability and "viable article" requirements. 5. I find the comments regarding "userfication" elsewhere where times of 6 months or more were proposed for people to work on userfied articles to indicate that there is no consensus that one month is anywhere near what was proposed as a maximum length of time for article improvement. [5] Collect (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kww. Obviously being maintained here since the article was deleted. - eo (talk) 00:58, 19 January 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.