Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMST30197PublicArt/sandbox/Chaplain Corby of Gettysburg

 __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: redirect to Chaplain Corby of Gettysburg. The pages have already been either accepted as AfCs, redirected to relevant pre-existing mainspace pages, or moved to draft space. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:AMST30197PublicArt/sandbox/Chaplain Corby of Gettysburg


User has been blocked for username violation for name of class. These abandoned drafts on sculptures were last edited in 2016.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:G13. They're good drafts, actually, kind of a shame to lose them. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ?? That strikes me as problematic logic. Even if they qualified for G13, which they do not, if it's a shame to lose them, why lose them, as though we are beholden to the letter of our guidelines when it's harmful rather than helpful? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Spot check doesn't turn up an AfC draft submission, without which they do not qualify for G13. They look to be reasonable drafts. That the user was blocked for a username violation (as opposed to being a banned user, etc.) does not strike me as reason to delete sourced userspace drafts. We don't even delete the userspace of someone just because they get indeffed. If they were self-serving/spammy that would be one thing, but that's not the case here, as far as I can see. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is true that they have not been nominated for AFC. In their present state, in user space of a soft-blocked user, they will simply sit until the invisible binary doomsday hits in 2038.  In order for them to be considered, they should be moved into draft space.  I can do that, but the MFD tag says not to move them.  Is this a case where Ignore All Rules applies, since the redirects from user space to draft space will still be there?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I think that the reasoning of User:Rhododentrites is correct, I think that Keeping these pages in their current location will just result in them being ignored longer. They should be moved into draft space, with or without applying the Promising Draft tag (one of the few times that I would consider the use of that tag reasonable).  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Maybe I made a mistake in bringing them here. Maybe I should have thrown them into draft space and let them be reviewed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment move to Draft (so they come up if someone tries to start that title) and submit to AfC which gives them a chance at mainspace. If they stay abandoned they can go G13 in 6 or more months. No need to wait out the week of an MfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Close the first page was copied to mainspace in 2016 so I've redirected it. I merged the second page as a massive improvement on the page about the building the monument remembers. I accepted the 3rd, 5th and 6th pages via AfC. The Tracery page needs more attention than I have time for right now. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Close These have all been either moved to draft space or article space. No longer abandoned.-- Auric   talk  23:20, 15 January 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.