Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/Bash.org
Disclaimer: I own bash.org. This article was restored as part of the refund process, though I question the reasoning behind it. Article was properly deleted some months (years?) ago; Tothwolf requested it be restored during his Arbitration litigation. There have been no improvements to the article since that time, nor did he ever contribute to it while it was an actual article. I further suggest that it can never be improved to the point of inclusion in Wikipedia, as there are no (and will likely never be) any reliable sources dealing with the subject. WP:REFUND and userspace are not to be used as an end-run around deletion. Sufficient time has been given for Tothwolf to either demonstrate improvements to the point of overcoming the previous AFD, or scrape out whatever content he wishes.
- Delete as nom. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no deadline for userspace stuff. This page is not an attack page, a copyvio, a potentially problematic BLP, or anything but an Internet culture article which was below Notability. Stuff in userspace has traditionally been held to different standards than articles in main articlespace, because they are utterly invisible to the outside world and the province of the respective user; if they are not harmful and are relevant (as this obviously is), they stay. Calling userfication of marginal articles an 'end-run around deletion' is a rather hostile interpretation. --Gwern (contribs) 17:50 30 January 2010 (GMT)
- Indeed, and I should expand on my interpretation. Tothwolf requested a WP:REFUND of this article after I made a statement in an arbitration case against him. The purpose of this restoration seems twofold: one, I believe he was fishing for some way to try and color or discredit my statements based on long-forgotten talkpage discussions from the bash.org article; two, he's repeatedly attempted to add this userspace restoration to mainspace categories despite several admonishments and explanations (which does sustain my interpretation of attempting to sidestep previous the previous AFD). I recommend reviewing the ArbCom findings regarding Tothwolf when considering my reasoning above. Given that the article contains what I know to be factual errors, and also that there will never be a reliable source to verify or correct any of those claims, I hope the community decides to uphold the original AFD results. Hope this helps clear things up. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is, moreover, unusual for the nom to add a !vote as well. Userspace does not even require notability, nor has any deadline been set in userspace. 2 months is surely not it. Collect (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not unusual so much as redundant; presumably someone nominating for deletion would vote delete. --Gwern (contribs) 18:37 30 January 2010 (GMT)