Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JackSchmidt/List of snowclones


 * 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 debate was keep. Wizardman 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JackSchmidt/List of snowclones
Deleted, userfied, left lying around for no apparent reason. One edit since last year. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Me   what do u want?  Your Hancock Please  22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to delete a userfied article. I assume its been userfied to keep it from getting deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was already deleted in mainspace. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD specifically said userfy was fine. The article needs a lot of work.  If the current content somehow offends you, I can blank the offending part until I have time to sit down and work on it.  Tracking down pop culture references is a bit tedious, and weeding through long history to find the decent versions is perhaps funny, but definitely tedious. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. What's the WP policy on deleting stuff in user space? Grover cleveland (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy is that you can keep it for a while if you intend to rework it to comply with policy, but keeping deleted material in userspace indefinitely violates WP:NOT a free web host and is an end-run around WP:CSD, so userfied deleted content that is not being worked on to resolve the issues which caused the deletion, is deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The history information is useful and a pain to export. Most of the pages in my user space have few edits. I could blank it if it is causing some trouble somehow. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Was this at one point a sandbox or some thing? Was this used in preparation of an article? If the article is completed, delete. If it isn't, keep. If it's not for an article, delete. Me   what do u want?  Your Hancock Please  00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a userfied undelete. The article is quite messy (as you can see), but during some points in its history is was (mostly) good.  With well over 500 edits in its history it takes quite some time to go through them.  Currently I am working on GA articles for WP:MATH, templates, and patches for mediawiki, not silly articles about 21st century culture, but this particular bit of 21st century culture is on the todo list. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep if it is still needed by the user, otherwise delete. Apparently still needed. No reason to delete if it's being worked on/planned to be worked on.  It's not like this is a BLP issue or anything of utmost importance that it needs to be gone right this minute.  Celarnor Talk to me  05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (still needed) JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Keep if the user still wants it. See below for fuller explanation. Viridae Talk 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's not like we decided to delete it or anything, is it? Oh, wait, we did.  I want to keep a copy of the original, long Daniel Brandt article in my userspace.  OK by you? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was no consensus, not delete. But yeah, personally, I wouldn't have any problem with the Daniel Brandt article sitting in your userspace if you were preparing it for re-entry to the mainspace.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh Guy, what a luvely straw man you just built. While' I'm sure you haven't missed it it should be pointed out that the brandt article was deleted after causing a hell of a lot of problems and about 17 separate deletion requests. This wasn't. So if someone wants to keep a copy of this around (its not as if it looks like the mainspace) so they can work on it at a later stage, why would we wannt to get in their way? Because wikipedia is all about the content isn't it? And it would be silly to delete someones project (however much it might languish while they are involved with other things), which will hopefully improve the content of the encyclopedia (remember that word - thats what we are here for Guy, content) at some point in the future, for silly reasons like laziness. Of course he might be lying to us and never intend to get around to using this - but since we have no way of knowing and the article is not harmful tehn we should of course allow him to keep it on the basis that it will be improved at a later stage. Viridae Talk 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's OK, we already know that your position is that deleted material can be kept forever in userspace. Or is that only the case when I advocate removing it?  No, don't bother answering: there are only two possibilities, and one of them I would not believe from you, not at the moment anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither. I advocate keeping harmless material that the user claims to be working on - or will work on. Thats what userfication is for... Viridae Talk 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfication is not an end-run around deletion policy. This was not being worked on at all, and actually never really was: it's just been moved to userspace because of WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete userspace is not an indefinite hosting ground for deleted content. Mr.  Z- man  18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you're still working on it, fine. Otherwise take it to your own web site please.  howcheng  {chat} 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Still working on it, but it is low priority. I need the history information (which remains in the database no matter how many times it is deleted, just not easily viewable by me) to finish it. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm a writer, and I love this page.  I've bookmarked it.  I come back to every several weeks or so for inspiration.  For the sake of its usefulness, please keep it. Laser813 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's no more encylopedic than when we deleted it from mainspace, and indefinite storage of deleted material is not an acceptable use of userpages. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider if it possibly would fit into mainspace under a less idiosyncratic title & some citations. But as is, I think a user could keep a list of clichés around in userspace, just as a user could keep a list of common logical fallacies or grammar mistakes or spelling errors--and there are many such lists. DGG (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Jack said he'd even blank it if it was causing problems. Guess what, most of my sandbox pages contain at least some deleted content in their history. Guy and several other users seem to be missing the spirit behind the userpage policies that normally discourage this kind of stuff. It's not causing problems, so no reason to give people a pointless deadline. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 27 April 2008 (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.