User talk:Imagi-King/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page is a userfied re-creation of a page that was deleted through AfD, then re-posted in violation of WP rules, and deleted again and salted. This userfied copy is an attempt to evade the deletion. Delete immediately, please. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you." Speedy deletion tags were clearly never meant for user pages. Don't edit my userspace, please. "The best option if there is a concern with a user's page, is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable." Refer to WP:UP for further information on such policy. Move for instant removal of speedy delete tag.Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- The user has been disingenuous, and attempted to use the userfied page to usurp WP rules by re-posting it to main space after deletion via AfD. He did so after several months, apparently thinking no one would still be watching by then. Because of the AfD violation, the main space article title was salted. I believe this user-space post is simply another way to attempt evasion of this article about a non-notable movie (in which, as it turns out, the author had a role). Delete and salt this user sub-page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- It was not a re-post, it was a posting of a new draft with significantly improved references and new indications of notability. The user space post is not featured as an encyclopedia article, and as such warrants no deletion. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- When an article is deleted via AfD, and not restore via deletion review, any re-posting is a violation. It doesn't matter about the changes. It is quite obvious that this user is desperate to have some sort of article about this non-notable film (in which he appears) on Wikipedia, even after we have told him repeatedly that it is not suitable. It is time to stop this foolishness once and for all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- I can only blame my ignorance for the aforementioned violation. I was simply unaware of this policy. Nothing was said of it on the article's 2nd AfD, so as far as I knew the restoration was allowed. I'm not desperate to have some sort of article, though I would of course like to. The user page is there to allow me to work on improving and developing the article to meet the notability standards. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- You don't understand. The article has been deleted, and additionally has been salted to keep it from being re-created. It's not coming back. There's nothing to improve. Admins have already stated that the article title will remain salted for at least a year, but often this is indefinite. Attempts to "improve notability" can only be seen as an attempt to somehow get this article back on Wikipedia, and is an act of bad faith. I can assure you that if you make such an attempt again, you will be blocked. Give it up already. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Often does not mean always. Should I choose to work on something in my own user space, even if it's temporarily salted, it's not in your rights to come along and blank it. Attempts to improve notability are simply that and nothing else. Do stop your threats of blocking. Much as you seem to think otherwise, you have no such powers, and are really just being petty. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, I am simply trying to stop someone who seems hell-bent on getting his little non-notable film mentioned on Wikipedia, and who can't take "no" for an answer. You are being disruptive. Please devote your energies elsewhere. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's not my film. I'm not the one being disruptive here, it's you who's targeting material in my user space. The userfied article does not even show up in search results. That's not having it listed on Wikipedia, just keeping a copy of it to work on, which is well within my rights. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- (sigh) You really think that somehow, after a year, this non-notable direct-to-DVD local film is going to get enough notoriety to meet Wikipedia standards? You're truly living in a dream world. (And it is your film. You're in it, and you're promoting it.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's not direct to DVD, and it's only your opinion that the film is non-notable. I've had more significant appearances on television news programs. Are those mine too? Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- (sigh) You really think that somehow, after a year, this non-notable direct-to-DVD local film is going to get enough notoriety to meet Wikipedia standards? You're truly living in a dream world. (And it is your film. You're in it, and you're promoting it.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's not my film. I'm not the one being disruptive here, it's you who's targeting material in my user space. The userfied article does not even show up in search results. That's not having it listed on Wikipedia, just keeping a copy of it to work on, which is well within my rights. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, I am simply trying to stop someone who seems hell-bent on getting his little non-notable film mentioned on Wikipedia, and who can't take "no" for an answer. You are being disruptive. Please devote your energies elsewhere. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Often does not mean always. Should I choose to work on something in my own user space, even if it's temporarily salted, it's not in your rights to come along and blank it. Attempts to improve notability are simply that and nothing else. Do stop your threats of blocking. Much as you seem to think otherwise, you have no such powers, and are really just being petty. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- You don't understand. The article has been deleted, and additionally has been salted to keep it from being re-created. It's not coming back. There's nothing to improve. Admins have already stated that the article title will remain salted for at least a year, but often this is indefinite. Attempts to "improve notability" can only be seen as an attempt to somehow get this article back on Wikipedia, and is an act of bad faith. I can assure you that if you make such an attempt again, you will be blocked. Give it up already. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- It was not a re-post, it was a posting of a new draft with significantly improved references and new indications of notability. The user space post is not featured as an encyclopedia article, and as such warrants no deletion. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- The user has been disingenuous, and attempted to use the userfied page to usurp WP rules by re-posting it to main space after deletion via AfD. He did so after several months, apparently thinking no one would still be watching by then. Because of the AfD violation, the main space article title was salted. I believe this user-space post is simply another way to attempt evasion of this article about a non-notable movie (in which, as it turns out, the author had a role). Delete and salt this user sub-page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined, but...
[edit]I cite two passages from WP:UP. It is reasonable to hold this material here temporarily, if an improved version is being prepared to take to WP:DRV:
Drafts being written in your own user space because the target page itself is protected, and notes and working material for articles (Note some matters may not be kept indefinitely).
But it is not reasonable to hold it indefintely:
While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.
Conclusion: if within two weeks this has not been taken to WP:DRV, I will nominate it for deletion at WP:MfD. I have marked it "userspace draft" and that template should not be removed while it is in user space. Unless it passes DRV, it must not be returned to the mainspace under another title.
JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! Finally a fair judgement. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have no objection either, but bear in mind that to get deletion overturned in DRV, you have to make a pretty clear case that the original AfD discussions — in this case two of them — were completely and totally out of line, or that the subject has gained a great deal more notability since the last deletion. It's pretty tough — I've actually gone through it three times (yes, I fought for articles to be restored, as unbelievable as some people might find that to be), and I only succeeded once. That's by design, as DRV is intended to have a pretty high bar to clear to keep disgruntled editors from abusing the process. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)