Drini drini wrote:
Hmm... I wonder why do we have articles like [[Alfonso X of Castile]] that happened 800 years ago?? who kept notes offline so much time?
I wonder if someone did is because he actually is, *ahem* *ahem* notable?
The point is to avoid the extra work involved in recreating the article from scratch and of having to research events up to a year old rather than inserting them as they occur. Sure, you can do it the hard way, but why should we _have_ to? I'll bet a whole barrel of fine Albertan crude oil that if February 22 rolls around again and the article's still stored away in the deletion database it's going to be undeleted straight away, and if that's acceptable then I don't see why it's not acceptable to store the article somewhere more appropriate during the intervening year instead.
Deletion is not an appropriate way of _storing_ articles. It is an appropriate way of _deleting_ things. The fact that they can usually be viewed and undeleted later by admins doesn't make it so, it just means it can be misused for it.
What would have been far better, IMO, would be to move the article to a subpage off its talk page; [[Talk:Brian Peppers/Temp]] for example. That's done on other controversial articles to allow for reworking of material without messing with the main article space, and it would keep it from showing up in Wikipedia's mirrors if that's a concern. If it's Google searches that's the problem, store it in a subpage of some Wikipedia: namespace instead. We had a discussion about AfD pages along these same lines and I was just as vigorous in my opposition then when it was proposed that they all be deleted as a way to store them "out of sight."