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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Craigy144/Oldest peers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an article living since 2006 in user space being edited by several longevity fans. Either it should be moved into article space and subjected to scrutiny at AfD or deleted from user space for Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best, unlikely acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator does not make it clear how this violates WP:WEBHOST. Although I have never edited (or even seen) this user page before, I have seen/used similar pages used, with the "related changes" feature, to monitor the pages for vandalism and WP:BLP violations. Older individuals tend to get thrown into the "Possibly living people" category without anyone checking whether or not they were alive. The PLP category does not have the same alerts and protections as the "living people" category, and thus vandalism and phony information often goes unnoticed in these articles. Thus this page could be used to monitor some of Wikipedia's most vulnerable and least visited pages, whose subjects are not consistently in the news but are low-key figures about whom their Wikipedia page may have a very significant impact on their online "reputation" (for lack of a better term). In other words, false information can easily spread because their notability is marginal and there is not a lot of information out there. Thus I can see how this could be "used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia". Canadian Paul 20:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for that explanation of a possible reason this exists. Why the emphasis on age? Why the redlinks? It's in user space - being hosted - but no evidence it's headed for becoming an article. Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on age for the reasons listed above. Red links so that if/when an article is created, it can be watched immediately. As for it being in the user space, the only requirement for a sustained user space is that it is/can be primarily of some value to the project - there's no requirement that it ever become an article or be built to become one. There is plenty of content in user spaces that is not an upcoming article, yet is useful to the project. A broad interpretation allows for the possibility of unforeseen benefits. Canadian Paul 06:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Keeping it in userspace with no interest in moving it to userspace if the definition of WP:WEBHOST. It's been sitting around long enough. The failure to include sources constitutes a possibly WP:BLP violation in that these are largely relatively unknown people who should not have private information like their birthdate publicly stated without high-quality secondary sources as per WP:NPF. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2016 (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.