Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dmak78/dfg/dfg (dfg)

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 02:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Dmak78/dfg/dfg (dfg)


Dmak78 seems to have created a number of proposed assignment plans during the middle of last year (see Category:Dashboard.wikiedu.org courses, UW for an idea) but a number of these seem to be mal-formed or incomplete tests. I'm listing those here for deletion. They are taking up space in Category:Dashboard.wikiedu.org course pages and creating WantedCategories and the like given the number here. Now that WP:G2 explicitly excludes the user namespace so these tests wouldn't qualify. Editor hasn't been active since July of last year. There should be about five working ones remaining that obviously aren't listed for deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Blank all. Blanking solves the category clutter problem, completely, and does not require (as does this MfD) reviewers to examine every page for possible worth being needlessly destroyed.  Blank, with a nice note, or a blanking template, or redirect all to the user's talk page section where you explain the problem that you have just fixed.  MfD-ing is overkill and burdens reviewers looking to review bigger questions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? You're now opposing because "MFD has bigger fish to fry"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am opposing because blanking is a superior solution, especially when consideration is given to the cost of checking each page against the possibility that it contains material that should be kept. Blanking, or archiving, or other non-deletion solutions should be considered and rejected for all old seemingly abandoned pages appealing for community review and admin action.
 * Can you explain why blanking, or similar, is not a good solution? The most interesting words you used were "mal-formed or incomplete", but that isn't clear enough for me, and it doesn't seem to apply to every listed page.
 * Not so much because there is more important work (actually the more important work you and I could be doing would be at WT:CSD, not that any of these are drafts), but because "just because there is an MfD process doesn't mean that it should be used". Recall the the rename to "Miscellany for Discussion" was resoundingly rejected.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's test edits that unusable. I don't know what blanking gains other than the editor suddenly looks through the contributions and has no idea why all their stuff was blanked. Instead they have an explanation with a link here and this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Failed tests can be learning value. When blanking, either do so with a meaningful message, or use a blanking template that caters to a reason parameter, or both, or redirect to the usertalk page where you can explain.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as no signs of current or future uses. SwisterTwister   talk  06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a bland rationale that would apply to probably most of userspace. Do you argue that all userspace of inactive users should be deleted?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all as having no salvageable content, just many approximate copies of the same cut'n'pasted boilerplate/template/wizard-output (I don't know the actual process involved here). I would consider it on par with WP:PROD-with-WP:REFUND offer, since it does serve no purpose (these indeed to not appear to be really viable starting points for creating a future actual course, and compared User:Dmak78/UW/Phil 134134134 (Summer 2015) as sandbox not nom'ed); editor isn't currently here, but if he chooses to return and think what was left wasn't sufficient, he might want his cleared deadwood. What is "archiving" if not moving to some other location, which wouldn't actually solve anything? No objection to blanking. But "we have bigger fish to fry" isn't a reason to take this fish out of the fryer if someone feels like cooking it. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:PROD in userspace was firmly rejected. There is some new discussion on scope for WP:PROD for drafts, but these are not drafts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I said "on par" and in relation to REFUND, and only as a lead-in to a situation-specific analysis. DMacks (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting all of these is fine. These were all test edits. The same goes for all the subpages of User:Ragesock and User:Sage (Wiki Ed) that are in Category:Dashboard.wikiedu.org course pages.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate to ask but could you tag your own stuff with yourself? Those aren't being discussed here, I just asked you about them. I wouldn't want to try to guess whether something like User:Sage (Wiki Ed)/Consumer Reports/Choosing Wisely Canada (July 2015) should stay or go. These though are from a different user so there's different issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 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.