Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Template:DanceDanceRevolution music

 __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. No consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Template:DanceDanceRevolution music


Orphaned, unused template. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not inappropriate, and no harm to outweigh the harm in deleting old Wikipedian's userpages.  Feel free to blank if it is causing any issue with WP:Categorizations or with WhatLinkHere or something.  Clearing orphan pages in userspace is a very bad idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not being used and there already exists Template:Dance Dance Revolution. Of what use is it? An normal orphaned template would be deleted so templates that are in templatespace should be deleted but templates in userspace should be kept? Why? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is not helpful, and actually harmful to the collegial environment of editors, for some editors to examine and judge the merits of other users' userpages at levels below actual inappropriateness. While you personally may be doing this impersonally and objectively for some reason (such as decluttering AfD categories, although no such reason is stated here), you are setting precedent for one user interfering drastically with another's notes.


 * De-cluttering template space I think is a perfectly valid reason (although it can still be done by redirection or blanking), because it is reasonable to want to be able to search template space without having to have useless things returned. If you choose to search userspace, you should expect to find all sorts of unpolished scraps.


 * Do you allege that this is a undesirable copy of something else? That is usually a good reason for deletion.  In this case, having just looked, I think no.  User:AeronPerton has added considerably to the real template.  I think (AGF-ing) that he is using this template to note by redlinks the many possibly missing articles.  As such, it is a very reasonable notes page.


 * I have changed his taggery from Userspace draft to user page (with noindex=yes). I think it was probably always the wrong tag to place on it.  It is not a draft.


 * If the issue is to erase the incomplete work product of inactive Wikipedians, then I strongly oppose. Such actions amount shutting out inactive Wikipedians, increasing the barrier for their return, and is not beneficial to the project.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if there's a small chance than someone could want to use it, then it's worth considering keeping. It's possible to have a separate template that coordinates all the music-related articles from the DDR series but it isn't there and there seems to be little interest in it. Again, what use is it? Why do you think the user created a template to organize all those pages if he or she didn't at least think there's a possibility of using it? And if it's not used, why keep it? It's not about erasing "their" work because it shouldn't considered "their" work. It isn't "theirs" to keep around forever. I've been going through this user's old articles and moving anything possibly useful so that rather than a draft sitting around after 3 years untouched, there is at least a small possibility of someone else seeing it and making their work useful in the future by publishing it. All of those articles were there after AFDs too. Would you prefer they just sit there for years, maybe decades, in the ever vanishing possibility that the one and sole user who started the page get to work on it? Is it objectionable that someone else may want to work on it or heaven forbid that someone else may say that after three years, it's frankly abandoned and not going anywhere. The point here is that this is project where people work together and a user who created something years ago shouldn't come back five years later and be annoyed that other people here have (1) edited their work or (2) deleted it. We have enough of those characters around here and you're just encouraging them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I support your actions in moving possibly viable drafts to draft space, where they can be expected to be reviewed, and where they are will be deleted if not viable but with automated helpful messages back to the user should he return and want them back. That is great.


 * I think we agree that this page is not a draft of an article.


 * I do think (as a possibility) that this user modified the existing template to produce and organised presentation of redlinks for articles that he intended to consider working on. As each page is created, the template-space template would be modified, so probably this userspace template page was never seriously considered to even be intended to be a used template, and if it did I would object because he would be making a long-term fork, with attribution difficulties.


 * I disagree that "it shouldn't considered "their" work". In userspace, users are usually given the privilege of control of the content.  This applies definitely to useressays.  It applies to notes, which I think this should be considered as.  It would not apply to everything, but does to some things.


 * While there may be benefit in others seeing this page, I don't think it is worth advertising. Instead, anyone interested should be expected to be able to find it by searching the namespaces for "Dance Dance Revolution".  This search  (specifically of userspace) for example brings up this page.  So yes, I think this page should indeed be left as is indefinately, noting that it is not a "draft".  However, as usual, the reason for leaving it is less for other editors to find as for the possibility that this user will return.  The return of all past editors should be presumed and accommodated.  The mindset that departed editors are departed for good is not good because it creates barriers to their return.


 * "All of those articles were there after AFDs too". If the redlinks are of deleted articles, well that would change everything.  I just checked, it is not true.


 * "Would you prefer they just sit there for years, maybe decades, in the ever vanishing possibility that the one and sole user who started the page get to work on it?" Yes.  That is the purpose of UserSpace.  And the cost of leaving it there is negligible, far less than the cost of talking about it.


 * "it's frankly ... not going anywhere". If you have performed that assessment, tell us how you performed that assessment.  If it is merely "3 years untouched" I will respond "there are no time limits".


 * I dispute your implied assertion that this was an editor who should not be encouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They can be encouraged. They are encouraged to create drafts of whatever they want, provided it's not already in main space (even then, a temporary draft of a mainspace article is permitted). A draft template is also fine. However, at some point, they are supposed to be working with the rest of encyclopedia here including the consensus about whether this template should be used. If the person created the template in template space, it would validly up for deletion because of a lack of use. Because they created it in userpace, we shouldn't just throw our hands up and say "well, let's never discuss whether or not to use this template because the person who created it never put it somewhere for review." That's just a gaping hole in actually deciding things. The question is, do you think the template should be used somewhere? If so, then we can move it to template space and actually use it. If not, then why shouldn't I just move this to template space and argue for deletion on the exact same basis but at TFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The question is, do you think the template should be used somewhere?" You missed the answer?  I think it is notes, in the form only of a template only, serving to record as organised redlinks, the user's intentions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * keep. Ignorance is not an excuse to be mean.
 * Delete. A navbox entirely composed of redirects has no potential to be useful. If the editor plans to do something with the box, ping me. czar  13:31, 11 October 2015 (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.