Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Andrea Werhun

 __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: Draftify * Pppery * it has begun... 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan/Andrea Werhun

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Unwanted article draft for indefinitely banned user, which doesn't seem to add value for the encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - We can treat a draft in the user space of a banned user as if it were in draft space, where it would have expired by G13. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - If we would like to invent policies that do not exist to exact an MfD brand of justice against a user for being banned then, yes, we can delete whatever we want for any purpose. This, however, has no basis our deletion policy. Something created by a user when they were not banned and which itself is not problematic in userspace simply doesn't have to be deleted. Userspace drafts are a default to keep unless there's something actually wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with this. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Move to Draftspace. User:Geo Swan was a good Wikipedian in many ways.  I liked him.  I am saddened that his troubles got him blocked.  I like to dream that he will return in good standing.  The subject of the draft is plausibly notable.  If moved to draft, someone else might, more likely than now, work on it.  If no one does, it will be soft deleted by WP:G13, meaning that if Geo Swan returns, he can get it back without fuss or drama.  Due to it being a WP:BLP, I think it’s better to put it into AfC processes than to leave it indefinitely in a blocked user’s userspace.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * if the creator is banned, draftifying is just "back door deletion" of a page which doesn't otherwise qualify for deletion. Someone's utterly innocuous user pages don't qualify for deletion just because they get banned. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Acknowledge that downside.
 * Disagree that a BLP is ever utterly innocuous.
 * Agree that banning or blocking does not and should not mean purging of their userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Question for nominator : you write "unwanted article draft". Is that your value judgment that this is an unhelpful draft, or do you have information that e.g. the subject does not want it here? I am loath for us to purge a user's userspace of stubby but inoffensive, sourced and potentially notable drafts created before they were banned. But we do delete marginally notable BLP articles on the subject's request, and I would extend the same courtesy to abandoned userspace drafts. And I am inclined to err on the side of deleting here since Geo Swan tended to diverge from the community's opinion on what types of BLPs were sufficiently notable, and ultimately got banned for a very inappropriate reaction to one of the subjects seeking to have such an article created by this user removed. Martinp (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse SmokeyJoe's Draftify solution. Nominator has not answered my question, so I'm not sure about the conclusion "unwanted article". But I share their and SmokeyJoe's discomfort with an abandoned BLP draft in the userspace of a user banned for (oversimplifying) mishanding BLP situations. I respect Rhododendrites concern that this is a roundabout out-of-process deletion, but I think the concern about "back-door" deletion in policy has more to do with "out of the public eye" than "without the creator beig able to respond". I find SmokeyJoe's point that Geo Swan, if he returns, can get the draft back even if it ends up deleted from draft space (which I expect is the most likely outcome), reassuring. Martinp (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about the creator being able to respond. It's about undermining the deletion policy. We have clear rules for when something can be deleted. "Back-door" is about subverting those rules. If we're draftifying an article as a way to get rid of it where none of the reasons for deletion apply, we're engaging in back-door deletion. Doesn't matter how many people are watching except insofar as IAR gets stronger as more people are involved. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Draftify as per SmokeyJoe. That is not back-door deletion, because any good-faith editor can edit it within six months.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true of every back-door deletion via draftification. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't "back-door" in this context because it's publicly discussed for a period of several days. Draftification may have a "back-door" character when it's done unilaterally. —Alalch E. 17:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what the "back-door" means. It's about using draftspace to get something deleted that doesn't otherwise qualify for deletion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The expression "back-door deletion" is loaded with nefarious overtones, it's mostly used in discussions about unilateral draftification (such as during new page review) and I can't see anything of the sort with a draftification after a full discussion. It's really quite a different situation. —Alalch E. 22:34, 24 January 2024 (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.