Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Kaffeeklatsch pages

 __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:  keep.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This page is for the MFD for the pages User talk:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch and User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch The user who created these pages was banned in 2015. I do not believe that it has value here. I am using good faith. Joesom333 (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as historical. I refer everyone to Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch. This particular page has been discussed many times, and while it is a user page, it was also a discussion board. There's not much gain to deleting this now, and it is important context for anyone seeking to understand what a women's only space looked like on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether you agree with the concept, the page is of historical significance and its existence even went to Arbcom. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 01:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If it comes to this, how do we mark the page as historical?Joesom333 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While it could be marked as historical, these pages takes up space and is confusing for those who may be looking for information on the eponymous German coffee-cultural phenomenon.
 * Deleted pages don't take up any less space than undeleted pages. Deleting a page just hides it from public view. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: They take up even more space because of the nominator's edits to them (not to mention this whole other page that will exist indefinitely and all of the edits made to it). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this page is confusing me. Joesom333 (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion has put forward. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no good reason to delete these User pages. These pages have already been deleted and later restored twice. The nominator originally tagged them for speedy deletion which I declined so I guess that is why we are here at MFD. I have no idea why Joesom333 seems so irritated by their existence that they are pursuing deletion through several different processes. I'm trying to assume good faith but Lightbreather's activity alienated several editors when she was active and maybe Joesom333 had a run-in with her with a previous account. Otherwise, how would they had even stumbled upon this obscure User pages? I mean, there are millions of User pages, how did you find these unless you were familiar with Lightbreather who, as you say, was banned years ago? Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as historical. The edit warring attempts to delete this page (relating to a notable historical dispute) without discussion after lying unedited for several years is very odd and I share similar concerns to Liz. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete. Nothing ever came of the desultory going-nowhere exchange of remarks posted there in early 2015, so the obvious question is:  history of what?  – Athaenara  ✉  11:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Further: I'm a woman myself, and I don't get involved in arguments about whether we have too many or not enough women editing here.  I see these pages as trivialities created by an editor who never got really involved in building the encyclopedia but instead treated the site as a place to construct a social media niche and engage in arguments about a pet issue (gun control, apparently, in addition to gender warfare).  It's an example of why the WP:NOT policy is necessary.  I do not understand why some editors consider it to have historic significance.  – Athaenara  ✉  04:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and mark as historical. No valid reason has been given for deletion. Nominator should be indeffed for trolling. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not trolling! Please assume good faith. I was confused as to how to go about this action, but I will abide by whatever consensus comes about by my motion. Joesom333 (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we can't speedy keep (or SNOW-keep yet) since Athaenara voted to delete. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a problem page.  The author being banned is not a reason to delete their userspace. This author is welcome to apply to return.  New editors attempting to police old userspace pages is a bigger problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being banned is not a reason to delete things they made before they were banned. And just because a discussion went nowhere is not a reason to delete a discussion page either. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep no valid reason for deletion, mark historical if needed, although it's unnecessary. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 21:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I want this deleted because it is confusing for those researching the German coffee-cultural phenomenon. Someone may want to make an article about the phenomenon of  Kaffeeklatsch.  I see no reason to disambiguate between this 7-year-old sub–user page––not even an article––and an article about  Kaffeeklatsch.  This will just end up confusing people.  I was researching the cultural phenomenon, and I ended up at this only-tangentially-related page. Joesom333 (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, but for a different reason than the nominator's: Lightbreather herself requested deletion back in 2015 just before her ban, and since the page is in her userspace I support following her wishes. WP:U1 deletion was requested here, and Floquenbeam duly carried it out, but the page was undeleted on request several months later on the theory that it was of broader "historical interest". I understand that argument, but we give a lot of deference to users' choices about how to manage their userspaces and, moreover, given the very difficult circumstances surrounding Lightbreather's ban I think it's best to be sensitive to her request here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think that U1 applies to the also-nominated talk subpage. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DELTALK is clearly focused on one's main user talk page (note the definition at WP:UP), and even if you disagree I'd argue this falls under DELTALK's "Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason" proviso. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark historical - I fail to understand the nom's argument that leaving the pages in place with confuse those who want to research kaffeeklatsches, since the pages in question are clearly labelled for what they are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note that the main page has been MfD'd before, in February 2015: see here. The result was "Keep". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note that the main page has been MfD'd before, in February 2015: see here. The result was "Keep". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep and trout the nominator. The delete rationale fails the laugh test. We don't delete pages because someone might be confused by them. This is clearly in userspace.--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  18:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but do not mark historical until the unban appeal is dealt with. Robert McClenon (talk)
 * Question for User:Joesom333 - What does this have to do with s unban appeal? If the answer is "nothing", I will, in advance, state that that answer is incredible in the sense 1, of not deserving consideration by a rational H. sapiens.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2022 (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.