Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexsutherland3/Enter your new article name here

 __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 Blank as it is essentially the user's only sandbox. — xaosflux  Talk 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexsutherland3/Enter your new article name here


Unsourced BLP Page promoting Alex Sutherland, a school boy who likes to run, by Alex Sutherland. Would never survive in mainspace for one second. Contested CSD so now we get to vote. Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. No policy-compliant reason given for deletion, and page is not in any way problematic. As it says at the top of WP:MFD, 'we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace.' Thparkth (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-viable abandoned draft about an athlete. Would not survive in mainspace. Permanently retaining personal information is problematic for non-public figures like this person. Generally violates WP:NOT. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Specifically, how does it violate WP:NOT? VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I would also point to your argument as squarely in violation of WP:NOTSTUPID: Wikipedia is flat out not the place to do something that's a terrible idea, like permanently keeping article drafts about topics that will never be suitable for mainspace. It is not a notability question, it is not a cleaning up userspace question, it is a matter of what belongs or does not belong on Wikipedia. This is in the latter category. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble reconciling "it is not a cleaning up userspace question" with the rest of your response. It seems that the fundamental deletion argument for this and several other recent MfDs has very much boiled down to cleanup. The problem is that these nominations run specifically contrary to our existing guidelines. I think an excellent case could be made for changing that guideline and some of your arguments could inform that case, but the guideline change should be done prior nominating tens of thousands of subpages for deletion. If the community determines that user drafts should be cleaned up, I suspect a less process-intensive method than MfD could be developed for articles such as this one. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maintenance categories have long existed for stale drafts and editors work them. This might be new to you, but not Wikipedians who toll in the backrooms cleaning up.  You also are quoting half a sentence of the the instructions for MfD - forgetting that there are MANY reasons clean up userspace referenced by that sentence. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Classy. Anyways, as you well know, your push for broad-spectrum deletion of user space drafts is, relatively speaking, brand new. Get consensus first, if for no other reason than to optimize the process. VQuakr (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As you told me yesterday - it takes competence to edit here. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Thparkth abd VQuakr. Page is non-problematic, and there is no benefit gained from its deletion. There are perhaps mild concerns with implied promotion, so blank+template with Userpage blanked would be appropriate. A2soup (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. We delete things for a reason and one of the reasons is that the goal here is to create an encyclopedia not a safe space where people can dump whatever they want for all time. The editor also created Alex Sutherland (UK Sprinter), the same content, just afterwards which was immediately deleted. The page should have been history merged or redirected to the mainspace one and thus should have been deleted when the mainspace one was deleted in September 2011. To do otherwise would be telling editors that they can indefinitely host mainspace-deleted content as long as it's in userspace which is in contravention of our editing policies to encourage a single WP:NPOV version of content and that content which is inappropriate is deemed inappropriate regardless of namespace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2016 (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.