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. The owner of the page clearly wants to keep developing this material, no compelling reason was given to delete it against his wishes. While it might not be in an ideal location, moving it to a better location (like User:StevenBKrivit/sandbox or User:StevenBKrivit/Autobiography draft) is a much simpler solution to the problem. There is also no policy-based reason to force the user to move the draft back into article space prematurely and face an AfD (which would likely result in it being draftified again). In either case, the user page has been mostly blanked, so the offending content is no longer visible. No compelling reason is given for why we must punish the user by deleting the revision history as well. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:StevenBKrivit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Overly detailed WP:FAKEARTICLE, crossing the line from "limited autobiographical content" per that guideline and into WP:NOTCV territory. VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago, there was an actual Wikipedia page for me. It was deleted because I did not meet the notability requirement. I was told at the time that I could move it to my user page and I could do anything I wanted to it. Much as the nominator for deletion of my personal now says on his own page: "If a page you created has been deleted[1], it probably[2] will be moved to your user page upon request so you can improve it without risk of deletion." Without risk of deletion? Really?

So, while waiting for more citations for "notability" I have been continuing to build the page. I do NOT appreciate the accusation of attempting to make a fake article!

Maybe its time this page gets nominated not for deletion, but for a real page instead. I or my work has been cited in WHYY (PBS), Le Monde, The San Diego Union-Tribute, Science magazine, Boston Globe, Financial Times, Popular Mechanics, Le Canard Enchaine, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Forbes...

StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further...my Rutherford investigation has been cited by three scientists. See bottom of page here https://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Rutherford-Blackett/Rutherford-Blackett.shtml

and on the Web sites of the AIP and others...

StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC) https://history.aip.org/exhibits/rutherford/sections/atop-physics-wave.html[reply]

StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevant past discussion may be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Krivit. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious fake article is obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Sundostund (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I did as I was told: "If not kept in mainspace, it should at least be allowed to mature in draft or user space so that good sources can be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]"

StevenBKrivit (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Seven years ago, an article was drafted about me and my work on mainspace. It was deleted because there were insufficient references, per my recollection. One WP editor suggested that I move the article into my user space to "be allowed to mature in draft or user space so that good sources can be added." I did that. Now, paradoxically, three of you don't like it because you think it looks too good! You accuse it as being a fake article yet there is nothing fake in it. You accuse it of being fake despite the VERY clear flag that says "This is not an encyclopedia article." Rather than discuss moving it into mainspace, you now want to trash the draft entirely. Amazing.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thank you to User:CX Zoom for linking to the AFD. While the page in question is not a G4, the close should be considered. I had been going to say to move it from user space to draft space, but the AFD makes the case for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:StevenBKrivit - MFD does not make a decision to promote a draft or user page to article space. If you or we were to move this page to article space, it would be nominated for AFD a second time, and, in my opinion, would be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow author to move to mainspace and face AFD or Delete - Let the author decide. (I think we know how this will play out.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving it back to mainspace for another AfD strikes me as process for the sake of process, and I don't agree this should be left up to the subject. VQuakr (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, WP:NOTBURO Dronebogus (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We can't have a userpage, as a bio page. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's not a fake article, it's a userspace draft. Just move it to /sandbox and voila! Transformation! It's not a copy of a deleted article because it's still undergoing improvement. Yeah, it appears to be an autobiography, which Wikipedians (me included) consider... undesirable, but as long as it's sitting in userspace, nobody's going to see it apart from people digging around in other people's userspace looking for work to do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rhododendrites: to be clear, it's spent the last 5 years as a user page not a userspace draft, and was still labeled as a user page not a draft at the time I nominated it for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough regarding the nomination. But we shouldn't delete things just because they were userfied to the wrong location. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Rhododendrites, this doesn't appear to fall under FAKEARTICLE as the user is working on this with a view to eventually returning it to mainspace. Should be a subpage or sandbox really but no reason to delete.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2022 (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.