Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass nomination of abandoned drafts

 __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:  speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass nomination of abandoned drafts


These drafts have been abandoned for between 4 and 10 years. Instead of flooding MfD, I decided to do a mass nomination of abandoned drafts that have no chance of being published to the mainspace. I am going to tag as many as I can. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are these all drafts for long-missing editors? bd2412  T 22:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no reason offered for deletion. "Old draft" and "inactive editor" is not a reason for deletion.  Nominations like this serve no benefit, instead serve to seal up the archives to increase the barrier for old users returning.  If any pages have specific problems,consider first using Inactive userpage blanked, and if that is not good enough be sure to explain why not with each nomination.  A spot check tells me that most of these are of potential value and no harm.  If left as they are, potentially useful content can be found using the Wikipedia internal searhc engine, and is not available to external search engines.  Other cases, such as User:Dmxgalaxynexus/Jim Vukich, show records of a historical misuse of AfC templating (if you don't want to use AfC you don't have to), and improper deletions without notification to the author.  The remnant shows the returning user what happened to their page, and will help them get it back, WP:REFUND requires you to know the title of the deleted page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep or Procedural Close - At least one of these, User:Dmcq/Summary statement, is a user page that belongs to an active user. The page is not tagged as having been nominated for MFD, and User:Dmcq has not been notified that the page has been nominated for MFD.  I have not checked the remainder of these pages.  As can be seen, I am supporting the deletion of pages that have been abandoned by departed users.  I partly agree and partly disagree with User:SmokeyJoe.  Really abandoned drafts by inactive editors are a form of crud that should be cleaned up.  At least one of these is not that, and proper bundling and notice have not been provided.  The nominator provided a service earlier yesterday and today, and now has through good faith overreached.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have went through and struck off the drafts from users that have recently edited. The only drafts left on the list are from users that departed a long time ago. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with above that I, too, partially agree and partially disagree with 's comments above. I don't know that I'd move for a procedural close, but if any of these nominated pages are from active editors and the editor has not been notified of inactive drafts, then I think the pages should be selectively removed from the nomination. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural close, as MFD above statement: "Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace."  These would have to be screened to see if they were created or moved there because of AFD or has the BLP issue.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider individually. Looking quickly, about half of these might make potential articles--it is even possible that a few might be suitable for mainspace right now, or after minimal editing. Ones that would not possibly make articles should be removed by MfD, on the basic principle that WP is an encycopedia, so content irrelevant to that should be removed.  DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have performed quick reviews of the drafts that were still on the list after the nominator struck those by current editors. I have submitted a few of them for review, and they are pending review.  I have tagged a few of them for speedy deletion either as G11 or at G6, housekeeping because they had no content.  I have submitted some of them for review and have declined them, in which case they can be edited and resubmitted by anyone, and otherwise will expire in six months.  Any other editor may usefully review this list again and edit, submit, tag, curse at or about, or perform esoteric rituals on them, or print them and feed them to goats.  I continue to recommend that this list be procedurally closed.  I do not suggest that any editor should make a similar list (although this one was made in good faith) without first verifying that the drafts have really been abandoned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just came across Draft:Green Tree House Hotel and I'm not sure that moving was the best course of action for that one (and perhaps for others but I haven't looked at them). This draft was clearly doing no harm and perhaps could be improved one day by the original editor if that person has access to offline sources. But now there are insufficient sources in the draft and no good sources available after a check online, so it will get declined and then deleted after six months. Wouldn't it have been better just to leave it in userspace? (FYI, I think the preferred course of action would be to have it sitting in draftspace indefinitely but I know that is not an option according to the consensus view.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Calliopejen1 - I see the merits of your argument, and maybe I should have left Draft:Green Tree House Hotel alone. However, the originator can always either, first, make a minor edit to it every four months (or make a non-minor edit to it), or, second, request that it be restored when they find new sources, whether online or offline.  Anything can be kept in draft space indefinitely if it breathes, or if its editor breathes on it, but you have a point.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep In my opinion, stale userspace draft is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I generally agree with DGG, though I would generally favor blanking over deletion for crud. It's less bite-y and if the user has truly left they won't put it back. (Of course, if they do put it back and it's crud, an MDF might be in order.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We can apply WP:STALEDRAFT to these cases but yes, do this individually so in case it does boil down to STALEDRAFT #6 "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." then it can be reconsidered here. This is assuming the user is inactive. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note I have struck off drafts that have been resolved. I have nominated Draft:Shanism for speedy deletion as it is a blatant hoax. This is the redirect of User:Dmergener11/Enter your new article name here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Wm335td (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no reason offered for deletion (way too broad). Lazy nomination and ...who knows which users may be swept up in this broad elimination. Doomed nomination WP:TNT this MfD and nominate according to guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2019 (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.