Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkech/Grantville Gazette IV

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 delete all. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tkech/Grantville Gazette IV

I'm also including the following here:

Per WP:WEBHOST, these pages have been dormant since 2009. The editor hasn't edited since April 2013. These were userified after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette IV and simply letting them be stored here indefinitely is now what we're here for. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for two points. One, it seems as if the editor has ignored the article, not improving it at all. At this point, this just takes up space. He's had 5 years to improve the articles to a state that they can be in Wikipedia, and he hasn't. And secondly, every issue of the Grantville Gazette isn't notable. Delete, or if he decides to improve the article, he should merge it into the Grantville Gazette. 123chess456 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as stale drafts. -- Whpq (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, stale drafts and do not appear to be notable enough that an article for each would be possible anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't supposed to be a democracy where we vote on draft articles in user space! There appears to be no reason given other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Not really a sufficient reason to rm otherwise acceptable, even useful, material.Student7 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is in e-format, as well. Wikipedia appears to rate an article, however. For some reason...:) Student7 (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it really fair to call it a 'draft' when it was set for deletion in 2009, moved to userspace in the hopes of finding reliable sources and then just left there for years? Why was it appropriate to delete in 2009 but not worthy keep in 2014 other than the fact that it's not in articlespace but in userspace? Is the five year anniversary of its deletion discussion sufficient? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia:User pages specifically states that user pages "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content" so I fail to see how this is case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT given how old these drafts are. -- Whpq (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2014 (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.