Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:AfC submissions declined as blank

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: Not an appropriate method. Individual pages may be re-nominated individually at will but this was not an appropriate way to try to mass delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions declined as blank


I am bulk nominating 208 pages declined at AfC as blank. Most are some form of sandbox but a few are Draft namespace. My rational is that they are much like G2 test pages but Technically G2 does not apply to sandboxes, but they are submitted to AfC sometimes more then once and should not be in the AfC wheelhouse. In theory these will age out G13 but if we nuke them all together it will reduce the G13 load (CSDing and then deleting) and be more efficent for the deleting Admin to handle like pages together. Any that the deleting admin finds are now no longer effectively blank would be exempt from deletion at the Admin's discretion. Note I'm nominating the pages in the category not the actual category. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all mere tests if in draftspace. If and only if blank. And these deletions should be performed via the Criteria_for_speedy_deletion process, not applicable to userspace or explicit sandboxes, with history checking for someone blanking non-trivial contents.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Keep all in userspace.  Userspace is for users to play in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But not to play in by clogging up AfC with blank submissions. That requires the effort of other editors to clean up. Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not the user's fault that their tests are being categorised so. Get the AfC people to fix their auto-categorisation so you don't have to look at userspace old AfC tests.  Users should be able to test project things in userspace.  There needs to be a good reason to interfere with others' use of their userpsace.
 * Compare
 * Wikipedia_talk:User_categories/Archive_1 and Wikipedia_talk:User_categories.
 * The userpage redlinked categories problem was worse, and was not just a userspace issue, because adding categories to userspace technically creates the categories in category space if they don't already exist, and reasons were provided why the tool Special:WantedCategories couldn't be easily fixed.
 * This is just a userspace issue, and I see no reason why the templated auto-categorisation can't be fixed so as to not bother others. Simply stop categorising userspace AfC submissions rejected at blank.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep all - The userspace drafts should be kept per SmokeyJoe and because userspace pages (especially sandboxes) are fluid (i.e. they may contain page history the users want or now contain content like User:Joachim Oforchukwu/sandbox). Furthermore, just because a page was submitted blank at one time, doesn't say anything about the activity of the user. The userpages of active users pages should generally not be deleted without serious problems. Keep the drafts as just because they were submitted as blank once does not mean that they are now (e.g. Draft:Ben Sweetland). Only ~20 of the 200+ pages are in the draftspace. No mfd notices on the pages and no notifications to the creators also doesn't sit well with me. No prejudice against individual nominations of truly problematic pages. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking random members, I see that Draft:Rassan is not blank, and so auto-deletion of the category membership, even just draftspace ones, would be improper. They need to be individually checked.  The auto-categorisation tool is producing erroneous output.  "Was once blank" does not mean "Is blank" let alone "All versions blank".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest autodeletion and suggested exempting any pages now not blank. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you should list or categorise the ones you mean. The category you have listed includes pages with content, and so this nomination must be rejected.  Also "now not blank" is not good enough, I expect "never not blank" or "blanked bu the sole author", but note that these imply, respectively, G2 or G7, there is no role for MfD, unless the CSD is objected to.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not the job of the community here or the closing administrator, to look through over 200 pages and see if they are blank or not (in this case) and examine the history. A nominator must, at the least, compile a list of the specific pages they want deleted. They should all be listed at the top of the miscellany for deletion page using multiple pagelinks templates. An mfd notice should ideally be placed on each one as is required; this requirement is sometimes waived with large nominations, especially if all the pages are related, subpages of a main page, or all by the same user or a few users, though that is not necessarily the case here. It is also recommended to leave a notice of the discussion for those who created the pages on their respective talk pages. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Tests, including blank pages, are perfectly proper in daft or user space. No valid reason to delete has been provided. Besides that, improper nomination as per Godsy and SmokeyJoe above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 04:54, June 28, 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.