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 in favour of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New Orleans Athletic Club. Bencherlite^Talk 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:NewOrleansAthleticClub/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a userspace copy of an article that was submitted to Afc in April 2012. The user made the two pages on one day and hasn't edited since. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host such pages. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not really so bad. An historic club, a page documenting its history. It is the start of a potentially decent article. I don't even see why blanking ({{Inactive userpage blanked}}) should be requested. If it must be dealt with, move to mainspace and allow testing at AfD. Beware the maxim "AFD is not cleanup". Admittedly, I am not immediately seeing any independent sources, perhaps overwhelmed by the number of non-independent coverage of the current commercial entity. However, the userpage definitely does not read as promotion. Encourage others to pick it up, add sources, and move to mainspace, presumably someone more aware of the club in real life. Or, maybe someone more aware of the club in real life may assert that the history is not sufficiently notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These things are already being done with the AfC copy, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New Orleans Athletic Club. I don't see the need to do it again with a second copy. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better than the average abandoned AfC submission. I'd prefer to keep this userspace version and delete the AfC version, so that it doesn't get G13-ed. Agree, we don't want two copies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have already been working on fixing up the AfC version by finding and adding sources. That postpones the G13 for six months. The user draft is thus outdated and unneeded. If you feel my efforts are inappropriate, then in fairness you should take over and improve your preferred one and move it to mainspace, rather than just suggest my improvements be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. I did see your edits, but then somehow completely forgot. Support User:Anne Delong's proposed solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2013 (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.