Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/Duck-family tree

 __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  No consensus. There seems no doubt that the page is stale, but the applicability of the WP:STALEDRAFT guideline is unclear because the page doesn't look much like an article. The discussion produced no consensus about that. As an editorial act, I will blank the page to minimize the chance of its contents being confused with encyclopedic material. --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Forum User/Duck-family tree


WP:STALEDRAFT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete--nothing since 2006 makes this a WP:STALEDRAFT. Also, it is a family tree for an imaginary duck family, which makes it complete rubbish. --  E♴  (talk)  13:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Has this user done something wrong? Why would you go around looking for old subpages to delete? I don't understand this at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a webhost. If we keep random useless pages like this, people could use Wikipedia for hosting content unrelated to the encyclopedia, such as their personal websites, reumes, family photos, etc.  That is not consistent with the goals of Wikipedia and would lead to the lessening of Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable encyclopedia. --  E♴  (talk)  15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your premise, I disagree with your specific implementation. There are thousands of vanity user pages/résumés/etc. on Wikipedia, largely of users who have made no or almost no contributions to the encyclopedia. I'd love to see their user pages and subpages deleted. However, this is a draft belonging to what appears to be a perfectly harmless, good-faith contributor. If this draft sits around for ten days or ten years, I don't think it particularly matters. If the concern is that it'll be mistaken for an article, put a note at the top (I think there's a template specifically for that). This particular request (a few others that I've seen at MFD lately) seem to be semi-random targeting of particular (once-)productive users who are no longer active. This doesn't make any sense to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right- there are a multitude of such pages out there, and it would be great if we could delete them all. Unfortunately, that would be difficult and I personally do not wish to spend the hundreds of hours of work that it would take to find them.  However, when such a page is brought up here, I vote to delete.  Just because we can't get them all doesn't mean we shouldn't get the ones that come to our attention. The policies do make it pretty clear that while experienced editors may be granted a bit more leeway on their userpage, they are still not allowed to use wikipedia as a webhost as this page is doing.  Pages don't have to be harmful to be deleted.  If they don't relate to building an encyclopedia, they don't belong here. --  E♴  (talk)  20:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a multitude of such pages out there. It is a consequence of allowing a world of unqualified volunteer editors to draft stuff in userspace.  It is a good thing that we can't just delete.  If we could, someone would.  And there would be false positives.  Good stuff would be deleted.  Good, productive editors would be upset.  That would be bad, and it would be for negligible theoretical benefit.  If the page is not in any suggested way harmful (eg misleading, promotional), then I vote Keep, because bringing very unimportant issues to an XfD formum is an abuse of process.  I instead recommend that editors interested in tidying wp:bold blank or redirect, if not fix.  You are allowed to edit others' userspace, and editing others' userspace is certainly less rude than deleting it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and E♴  (talk)  . Should be described as fossilized rather than stale! -- Klein  zach  00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly reasonable sandbox activity relating to the article Donald Duck.  Not imaginary at all, but a notable historical subject.  The possible harm (from someone thinking this is a real article?) is outweighed by the negatives of people needlessly interfering with others' userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, it does appear to be Donald's family tree. I didn't spot that when I glanced at it originally. (I don't know much about Donald Duck).  It is still a WP:STALEDRAFT, however. --  E♴  (talk)  02:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid sandbox entry. If SmokeyJoe hadn't identified this as Donald's family tree, I would have supported the nominator's rationale wholeheartedly; if you don't realise that this is Donald's family, you're quite likely to think it just Forum User's family tree and thus something that doesn't belong here.  Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And tell me why you think this gets a free pass from WP:STALEDRAFT, particularly since Forum User hasn't edited since 2007. Oh wait, IT DOESN'T. Get your head on straight. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 16:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replying here to TPH here and to his message on my talk page. WP:STALEDRAFT does not require deletion of anything.  In fact, the blue link all caps emotive text is a crude and unhelpful thing.  It links to a section titled "Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages".  This page does not look like an article, copy page, or project page.  The section therefore does not apply.  This is a bona fide sandbox related to an existing article.  I don't know why the author made it, but when he comes back it will very likely help him to remember what he was thinking at the time.  As for the editor having not edited for a few years, we most certainly do no have a policy of deleting the userspace of inactive editors, and neither should we, because it would be rude, and actively un-welcoming for them on their return.  Now if you wanted to replace the content with a polite note, explaining that you've temporarily blanked the content, with a platitude wishing him well and hoping he'll yet return, then I would think it a very good and nice thing to do.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine sentiments, elegantly expressed - but completely disproportionate! User probably spent 15 minutes on this and left it half finished — four years ago! The chances of the user coming back — and being able to find his/her old page — must be close to zero. -- Klein zach  03:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that editors won't return? If the user returns, even if he had forgotten the page, finding it would be trivial, if it is not deleted.  Even if it is blanked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - It looks pretty stale, regardless of which family of ducks it appears to be.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 16:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid sandbox use not violating any WP policies. Collect (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Textbook STALEDRAFT. God almighty but people pick the lamest things to stake their reputations on around here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:UP is just a guideline and WP:STALEDRAFT is a very small section of a very small section of that guideline, and none of it is part of the core purpose of WP:UP, which is to ensure user pages aren't used "to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute" (from the nutshell). Furthermore, WP:STALEDRAFT doesn't even prohibit long term drafts as the shortcut would imply, read it! Its only real reference to drafts is: "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these)."  The purpose of the section is to prevent people keeping alternative versions or userfied articles without actively working to bring them up to standards.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to invoke IAR, why not point out that Donald Duck's family tree, as placed in the userspace of someone who hasn't edited in over four years, is of absolutely, utterly, definitely, totally no value to our encyclopedia and never will be? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, invoking IAR was completely superfluous and only done to point out the mutability of guidelines. More important is that the guideline doesn't prohibit what so many nominators here think it does.  These nominations are a waste.  Your point can be turned right around, deletion of this page "is of absolutely, utterly, definitely, totally no value to our encyclopedia and never will be".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Precedent is pervasive, and has a psychological impact on future work. Removing an individual article on some minor Pokemon character does not positively impact the encyclopedia by any great degree, and yet it sends the message to future editors that we have a threshold for fictional content and policies which explain why. The same applies to MfDs of pointless stuff in userspace: they reinforce that userspace is a privilege rather than a right, is there for things which will help the encyclopedia, and should be used for that purpose and not relied upon for other things. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to a new section at Talk:Clan McDuck. This draft or notes page is superseded Clan McDuck.  Leave the redirect in case the author returns and looks for his old contributions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should this abandoned piece of original research be moved to an even less appropriate namespace? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't read it as OR, just as probably based on unrecorded primary source material. The same material seems to be in that article, so it is not as if the material itself is an obvious problem.  Someone should move it, rather than leave it, because the user's draft has fallen behind the current state of sourced knowledge in mainspace.  I'm not sure, but I think I see minor discrepancies, and so it is worth bringing up on the talk page for interested editors to review.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment see . Don Rosa was a major writer on the Ducks for some years.  Hence - not OR.  Collect (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - stale draft from a user who has long since left Wikipedia, that is never likely to make it into mainspace. This kind of material cannot be kept in userspace indefinitely. Robofish (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2011 (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.