Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Akingwel/mezzomarketing

 __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  Delete. Nakon 01:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Akingwel/mezzomarketing


Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not sound like much of a reason, we do not have any article on this topic Mezzo Marketing, is there any significant reason to delete? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a violation of WP:WEBHOST. If this was an article for submission draft, after six months, it would be permitted under WP:G13. Is there any evidence that an article would stay? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you check the page view statistics you'll see there is no basis to your NOTWEBHOST allegation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WEBHOST is a policy reason. I don't think anyone really looks at each page's views to determine whether or not it's a webhosting issue. Either way, why is there is so much interest in saving some potential article on a marketing company? If someone thinks it could be a real article, userify it yourself, take it to draftspace or just take it live. What is gained by keeping it sitting there within some inactive user's space? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Blank, replacing with Inactive userpage blanked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? If someone thinks it's a viable draft, they can adopt it themselves or move it to draftspace or whatever. It's been two years since that editor was last here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "why delete" is a much bigger question. Why not blank, when blanking is a complete solution to any concerns about the content being live, and doesn't involved creating an MfD nomination and wasting valuable forum time on it.  Or, even better than blanking, redirect to Mezzo Marketing .  We really need a "Options to consider before MfDing" list don't we?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A cross-space redirect to a red link? Why? Because it's a draft that's been around for years and no one is working on it? Because we should delete it and focus on the ones that could actually be created? Any particular reason that this one should be saved rather than any of the other 900 or so at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from March 2010? I'm constantly clearing out older ones to make them either (a) published; (b) sent to draftspace for later publication or (c) deleted. There's 47k out there so that would just be a giant backlog that goes nowhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I composed that comment in edit mode, misread Graeme's comment, and didn't realise it was red-linked.  Absolutely nothing wrong with a userspace -> mainspace redirect, but no point redirecting to a redlink, that would be silly.
 * Do I read that you are on a path to listing up to 47k pages at MfD? Why can't you blank everything that you don't think has a future, instead of listing at MfD?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not support auto-deletion of any userpages, and was not alone at WT:CSD when this was excluded from CSG#G13. Better to shut done the article creation wizard if it creating so much junk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If even 1% of those pages are useful that's over 450 new articles for here, work that's probably pretty obscure stuff. A lot of it is people just not correcting merging histories as they copy and paste versions so that's fairly quick. I'd rather list them at MFD and get more eyes on them. A few have had someone else volunteer to take it on (or to take it live) which is much better than me just unilaterally blanking someone else's work based on my personal views. I used to list them at WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts but those went no where either. And again I've personally restored drafts when editors have returned (more than once, it's someone who's created a draft here that's here rather on their personal website or blog and they've poppped back when/just after being listed at MFD) which I think is fairly normal. Again, why is there such interest in saving an potential article in an inactive user's userspace? No one else will find it, it won't become an article and it's just sitting there for no reason. If someone sees potential, move it to draftspace. It'll at least come up to someone else every few months rather than just lie dormant there. What is gained by having a potential article that never moves forward to either fruition or to deletion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'd rather list them at MFD and get more eyes on them" That's great, but please put more effort into the nomination.  Why are more eyes desirable when the obvious remedy of blanking, administratively lite, easily done and undone if there is disagreement.  Do you not see that MfD is woefully backlogged and you are adding more busywork to it?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. Also fails WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. If anyone thinks it is the case, then please moves it to main space, and the current discussion becomes moot. I doubt blanking is a good idea in general, as explained in wp:User_pages - 7.3.2 On others' user pages (a content guideline) - Nabla (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your link contains no explanation as to why blanking is not a good idea. In contrast, bringing every old usersubpage to MfD is a terrible idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. Content has not been edited since 8 March 2010‎ (UTC). North America1000 12:48, 17 July 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.