Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beaupedia/Project XX (2nd nomination)

 __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  soft delete. It's run its course here and while it's not a hoax, the consensus here supports deletion. However, if anyone wishes to have this restored, they can make a request to me and likely at WP:REFUND. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Beaupedia/Project XX


Previous MfD closed as No Consensus as there were no !votes made, so relisting for the same reason as the previous MfD JMHamo (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I wish I would've voted at the first as there's barely anything here. SwisterTwister   talk  21:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete One edit almost 6 years ago, and it's pretty darn close to an Speedy A1 at that. Appears to have nothing to do with the current Project XX. Meters (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No good reason to delete, unworthy of discussion. "Barely anything there" is not a reason to  delete someone else's userpage.  "pretty darn close to an Speedy A1" shows that User:Meters is inept with CSD policy or the distinction of different namespaces.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This has not been edited since 2 July 2010‎, making it extremely stale. In reality there is no hope that this will be improved to a standard where it will be moved to the Main space. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Yes it's not in article space so A1 wouldn't apply, even if it were not, as I have now found, about a real TV show. Throw it in draft, and see if someone wants to adopt it if User:SmokeyJoe thinks it's worth it. Keeping it as is is pointless. And what happened to "comment on edits, not users"?  Meters (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Throwing it into any process, Drafts, MfD, is a negative contribution. I guess the categorization bothers you?  Just blank the page. Leaving it as it is means you are more likely to think of something productive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're not aware of WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. This is the correct process to delete abandoned drafts and is not a waste of time, as you're insinuating. JMHamo (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleting every abandoned draft is a waste of time, yes it is, as as some editors are very loose in deciding what is a useless abandoned draft. How many are there?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which is not shared by the members of WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. The number do not matter really... they don't all have to go to MfD together, it will be done gradually over years probably. JMHamo (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the number is at least in the tens of thousands. That obviously matters, they cannot all be processed by MfD, and to try to do so drowns out the important business of MfD.  It would be better to put them through as group nominations, if you can develop rigorous criteria.  If that works, we can develop a CSD criteria, and maybe even another deletion bot.  Evidence is that development of rigorous criteria is not done. Currently, nominations are random, more damaging to the project than helpful.  Why don't you take this feedback back to your WikiProject?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no question in my mind that this qualifies as an abandoned draft. One edit 5-1/2 years ago, and the creator has made only one edit on Wikipedia since then and that was 4 1/2 years go. If you agree this is abandoned then your comment about some editors being loose in their definition of abandoned is uncalled for. If you don't think this is abandoned perhaps you can give us your definition. Meters (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is abandoned and of no value. The question is whether MfD nominations of such things in general are a positive or negative to the product.    Other similarly worded nominations are not so easily agreed, and so all need review.  If you were only blanking, with a polite edit summary, then it could pass without review, assuming only that you checked that it was old and the editor long inactive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that it's only you that thinks MfD nominations like this are "negative to the project", IMO this is exactly what MfD was created to do.. there should be more MfD nominations like this one, not less. JMHamo (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Abandoned and of no use" but not to be deleted or even moved to Abandonded Drafts so that it might be adopted. Seems rather WP:POINTY Meters (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Members of this Stale Draft cleanup are CSDing what can be CSDed, moving the few good articles into draft or mainspace, and correctly using MfD for the rest that have no other obvious future. If an editor does not want to review stale drafts for deletion no one is forcing them to comment on them. Oh and Delete this stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep "Stale draft" by itself is not a valid reason for deletion. If someone wants to work on this it could be moved, until someone does leave it alone, it does no harm. DES (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I commented but failed to vote. Opposing cleanup of stale drafts for the sake of opposing cleanup is not helpful. This page has zero possibility of moving into mainspace so it should be deleted. I've also found it to be a hoax, unrelated to the upcoming film by this title. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not related to the current project, but not a hoax. Apparently it was an NBC documentary series in the 1950s and '60s. See https://books.google.ca/books?id=sFOtmD8N8a0C&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=Project+XX+1954&source=bl&ots=Gya5BzMn_0&sig=TZODMHg_EZRWJ3atRNNhO_5LOyw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikhpDAw4XLAhUU-WMKHXTKBZY4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=Project%20XX%201954&f=false and https://books.google.ca/books?id=dyxSCoq9fKEC&pg=PA67&dq=Project+XX+1954&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=Project%20XX%201954&f=false for example. Meters (talk) 04:44, 20 February 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.