Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Nemu64

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 @harej 00:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/Nemu64[edit]

Article Nemu64 was deleted on 6 October 2009 at an AfD. This was then taken to Deletion Review, which was closed on 12 November with the result "deletion endorsed, could have been closed no other way and the article is still lacking reliable sourcing and none has been provided". Meanwhile the article had been temporarily userfied, and still exists at User:Valoem/Nemu64. The page has a template which refers to the deletion review discussion, and says "to facilitate that discussion, the page has been temporarily restored...". Since the reason for temporarily restoring the page no longer applies, following the endorsement of deletion at DRV, the page should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was userfied after the DRV. See log [1] The {{tempundelete}} template was a leftover from the DRV nom who created Nemu64 with just that template before the article was restored [2] (see history and log). --Tothwolf (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the DRV result was endorsement of the AfD closure, note that the article was deleted and then userfied by the DRV's closing admin. Since that occurred within the last few weeks, this certainly can't be considered an abandoned userspace draft. Absent any valid reason for deletion, I vote to keep. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes to soon to consider this. Give the user time to work on this. Its doing no harm here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What seems to be the issue with this article on my user page? It is on my personal user page and I plan to add at least 3 more citations before restoring this article. AfD was to endorse the deletion as the closing admin had not acted improperly. I do still feel that the reason for deletion due to unreliable sources is not true. Also emulation zone is a reliable source in the emulator world. It might take a few months before it is recognized. Valoem ^talk 00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HEY VALOEM, why not volunteer it to the article incubator that everyone can work on it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator (comment by 97.113.183.30 )

HEY, all userfy articles should be moved to the article incubator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator (comment by 97.113.183.30 )

that project is an experiment, and userifying is a well-establish practice. Those who want to experiment can use the incubator. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless, of course, all userfied material should be deleted. Which is not my opinion. Collect (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (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.