Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/The Comic Books

 __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. The concern of the "keep" arguments is that WP:STALEDRAFT isn't meant to apply to rough notes that don't resemble an article or project page. The "delete" comments, although more numerous, do not make any noticeable effort to address that point. Since this is the second MfD in a row that I'm closing as no consensus around this type of situation, I would recommend a broader discussion of the general issue at Wikipedia talk:User pages. --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Forum User/The Comic Books


WP:STALEDRAFT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-- nothing since 2007 makes this a WP:STALEDRAFT. -- E♴  (talk)  13:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. user hasn't been active since 2007. -- Klein zach  00:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing linked by the WP:STALEDRAFT shortcut suggests that deletion of this page outweighs the encouragement we should give to editors to appropriately make notes in their own userspace, or the principle that "there are no time limits", or the negative consequences to the community atmosphere when some editors needlessly interfere with others' userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Your argument makes no sense because it editors are not around, then how can we give them encouragement? Sure, there may not be a time limit, but I think that WP:NOTWEBHOST supercedes that, but then you might argue that WP:IAR supercedes that, and then we'd be back to WP:TIMELIMIT again. So - my question to you, Joe - do you see potential with this draft?    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 12:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense, or you don't understand, or you disagree? I think you have limited yourself to the immediate present.  I am thinking of when the editor returns.  Am I wrong to do that?  Should we assume that all non-currently-editing accounts are gone-forever users?  I would prefer to not attempt to debate in bold blue abbreviations.  What is the violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST that you see here?  It looks like an draft for potential encyclopedic content to me.  More than it looks like a resource for off-site purposes certainly.  This is someone else's userspace, so it is not important that I see the potential, just that the author does, for as far as we assume he was working for the benefit of the project.  I am familiar with the section linked by WP:STALEDRAFT, and I judge this userspace page as not violating it.  I also think that the onus should be upon nominators to explain the reason for deletion.  At WP:UP, the said section does not per se require deletion of anything.  Why, for example, is this page not dealt with by redirecting or blanking, as per the explicit advice at WP:UP, if the live content is bothersome?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, not touched for 4¼ years by someone who's not been around for 4 years means that it is quite stale. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - It looks pretty darn stale to me.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - not much more can be said other than WP:STALEDRAFT.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 20:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - see my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/Duck-family tree. Furthermore, these aren't even "drafts" they are "notes" which aren't covered by even the broadest reading of STALEDRAFT, which never said what you think it says.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wouldn't have thought it was worthwhile to preserve the notes of former users. Encyclopedia editors expect their contributions to be edited, changed and developed, so it would not be logical to faithfully preserve the unfinished work of lapsed contributors. If 'Forum User' returns and is able to locate this page (which is highly unlikely) is it going to be of any use to him/her anyway? Probably not.  -- Klein  zach  03:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. If the notes are deleted, and the user returns, and he asks, I can't imagine anyone not agreeing to undelete them.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 16 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.