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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hahc21/Deseo[edit]

This text is a duplicate of Deseo (fragrance), an article which is currently up for Speedy Deletion. I informed the article's creator, User:Status, of the deletion but he was blocked from editing at the time. Bizarrely, User:Hahc21 then volunteered to copy this article into his userspace [1]; Status thanked him for this [2]. I'm not sure about the rights and wrongs of saving material that could potentially be deleted (my instincts tell me that one of the users plans to recreate the article at a later date), but hosting of those images in a namespace is a definite no-no. SplashScreen (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall invite User:Status, User:Hahc21 and User:Toddst1 (an admin who has been dealing with similar conversations involving the two editors) to this discussion. SplashScreen (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is up for deletion because it lacks content. When moved to userspace, then CSD doesn't apply for this article, and AfD neither, since it is not an enciclopedic article anymore. So, this nomination is baseless. 190.199.81.50 (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was made by me when not logged. —Hahc 21 05:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I have just deleted the article as it does not have sufficient content, and re-created it as a redirect to Jennifer Lopez. Having this copy serves no purpose, unless the creator can provide some examples of significant coverage on this range of perfumes at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. If the creator can do that, I would consider changing from 'delete'. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed that out of all of Lopez's fragrances, Glow by J.Lo is the only one notable enough to have its own article. I don't see a reason for this to be deleted though, the user can delete it if they so wish to themselves. Which will probably be done. Statυs (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I copied the article here because myself and Status will work on it. If we don't find reliable sources, then I will request myself the deletion of the draft. —Hahc 21 05:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments presented in favour of keeping this persuade me that more time should be given to work on this. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only an acceptable, but an encouraged use of a user page (provided there is no WP:SPAM vio). User pages should be a place to draft articles. Ineligible for G4-type rationale, as the original article has not faced AfD, only a speedy. User:Hahc21 is constructive editor in good standing and has a clean block log, so I think WP:AGF applies here. --Surturz (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Surturz. Acceptable to have the article drafted in user space. Till 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm inclined to go along with Surturz and revisit this, if need be, when the draft becomes stale. Achowat (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The user page was created 23:02, 1 July 2012‎ and listed for deletion 00:02, 2 July 2012‎. Ten minutes has never amounted to "indefinitely host pages" or "long-term archival purposes" noted at WP:STALEDRAFT. Next time, wait at least three months from page creation before listing such a user page for deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2012 (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.