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 debate was no consensus to delete it yet but rather agreement to keep it until its potential or lack thereof has been evaluated completely. Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox[edit]

User has blanked the page. Blanked content is a newer, mostly unsourced draft of twice previously deleted content which is a conflict of interest autobiography of the user (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (2nd nomination)) which itself would be a CSD G4. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's been blanked, problem solved. -- Ned Scott 07:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding my keep rationale. I'm not convinced that the page couldn't find the necessary sources to exist in the mainspace, and COI is something to be mindful of, but not feared. I've helped a guy out once who basically wrote his own article, but since the text was very simple and neutral, there really wasn't much of an issue. He even gave us a freely licensed image of himself. As long as other editors are helping, the COI concerns should be minimal/avoided. Working with the subject of an article can often be a great resource in itself. -- Ned Scott 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em.. no it hasn't. :Delete. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion, just as bad in user space as in the article namespace. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make that thrice-deleted: I've just deleted and salted the recreation at Suzanne olsson (lower-case). See the history in Gwen Gale's talk page archives. Delete Bencherlite ^Talk 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is outrageous. The user has a right to work on the article in user space. However, I'll fix the COI problem. I'll ask for the article to be restored to my user space, where I'll take responsibility for it. Or maybe I'll just move it there myself, I'll report any action I take here.--Abd (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved it to User:Abd/SuzanneOlsson, with the Talk page. I have left the MfD tag in place until this MfD is resolved. I may also blank or partially blank what is now a draft article. --Abd (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've moved it back. There's no reason this user should not be able to have a sandbox for their own article. COI is something to be mindful of, but it does not place a ban on said users. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course the user should be able. But the COI argument was being raised, and I mooted it, and Ms. Olsson appears to have been grateful. Not that it matters a lot. If the closing admin thinks that the location matters, it can be in her space or in mine. --Abd (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think I misunderstood your original intent, so I'd like to apologies if I was snippy or rude. Cheers :) -- Ned Scott 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (in userspace) While I think this wouldn't be appropriate for mainspace, there is nothing keeping the author from putting something together in their own userspace per WP:UP I believe that this is indeed intended to be put into mainspace and think there should be someone watching out for that since it is very autobiographical and really should be written by someone else, but I don't think that warrants deleting a user's sub page. Perhaps if this user wanted to write this article up so that someone could write a derivative work off of it that could be a useful thing. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To moot the COI thingie, I've taken responsibility for the page at User:Abd/SuzanneOlsson. Currently, I think, she should be allowed substantial freedom to make the article what she thinks best, and then I, and presumably others, will help take that to usable form. There are sources, but, I've found, it is better to work on an article unmolested for a while, until there is something that meets legitimate objections, instead of facing what can be edit warring over usability of sources at every turn. Then, when it is ready, we will move the article back to mainspace or take it to WP:DRV, whichever seems to be less wikifuss (assuming we can properly source it). I hope this will resolve the present dispute, and I've informed Ms. Olsson that her previous response was disruptive, and I think she will listen to that. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are doing a very good thing by helping her out like that. It is always good to see wikipedians who are willing to support others. From the ref's I think she is notable enough so its great that you are taking it on! Good luck with your writing, and I hope they let it stay up. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced about her notability but will see what happens more sources are found (or not found) - unless it's ends up sitting in Abd's article graveyard forgotten about. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the harm of that? Allemandtando pointed to a single article that may require some extensive work off-wiki before it comes back, if ever, and it was deleted less than two weeks ago. I have almost no power over that work, and I can only devote so many hours to each article. If the sources appear, then I'll help the article come back. If not, I'm not about to tilt at windmills, those damn blades can knock you down. In the case of the subject article here, if what I've been told can be backed up -- and if it is true it should be possible to back it up -- then we won't have as much trouble. User:Abd/MKR (programming language), the alleged "grave" in my user space, didn't have a review in a major publication. Apparently Ms. Olsson's book did, and maybe more than one. None of which is relevant to this MfD. The article is now a working draft, far from ready to come back, it may be quite a bit reduced in size before being returned, so that the notability issue is on the front burner, and any review not complicated by the COI and unsourced text issues that create spurious arguments. --Abd (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep irregardless of who user space, as per WP:UP#SUB which says A work in progress, until it is ready to be released. This is typically not necessary, though some people do this especially for WP:COI compliance or drafts of a page whose title is protected. Gnan garra 10:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Users should be encouraged to properly manage their own userspace, and the blanking shows that no intervention is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After blanking, user tried to put the deleted content into the mainspace at Suzanne olsson (since Suzanne Olsson has been salted). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems to be more of an issue of confusion after reading User talk:Father Goose#Page Protection and Page Development Request. Suzanne seems sincere, and even if the article is unlikely to reach the main space, I think this experience of helping her with the page is most likely going to benefit everyone involved. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne is sincere. All I have ever asked for have been reliable sources. Would that we could find them. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now, she has mentioned print sources, and she may be able to get copies, she's working on it. People sometimes forget that there is a huge amount of reliable source not accessible on the internet. One source may be in Kashmiri. Olsson apparently had a long career in journalism, working for major publications, so there may be something there. I really don't know. As to the article move back into mainspace, I don't think she has a clue as to policies and procedures. In any case, it's in user space now, and she knows not to move it back to mainspace, herself, period. Conflict of Interest, it's been explained to her in detail.--Abd (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources exist but they never make an appearance. Rennes-le-Chateau, Atlantis, The Jesus Bloodline, Loch Ness Monster, et al. Just how long are you and your future descendants prepared to wait for the "sources"???Wfgh66 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it takes. Getting scans of a newspaper out of Kashmir or India isn't likely to happen overnight. Going through libraries to find bylined articles by Olsson, pre-web, or articles about her, is going to take time. That is why the article is in user space, and I really wonder why the serious sarcasm? What nerve does this touch? Why even take the time to make the comment? --Abd (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are far more notable people who have not got articles about themselves on Wikipedia and here we are wasting space on a nobody. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop that! Nobody is a nobody, and that's a tautology.--Abd (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of more notable people should have no bearing on this page as:

of course there are plenty of notable subject that dont have articles yet, that is why there are people starting them all the time, and;
User space is User space is User space. maybe the subject is hopeless... or perhaps it is just under-noticed comparison to the fact of a lack of articles on others proves nothing, and;
Wikipedia still isn't a paper encyclopedia, and no trees are harmed by one user having what is probably less than a couple of kilobytes of information on their user page. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I do not think it very likely that an article along the lines that has so far been written will ever be acceptable; reviews from the Fortean Times would seem to indicate the nature of the speculations. Still, it is conceivable that the movie will be a success, and then we may be able to have an article on it. No harm in waiting a little while. Similarly strange things have struck popular fancy. Abd is a very persistent and conscientious editor, and if he'll keep watch I'd be inclined not to interfere. DGG (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2008 (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.