Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences

 __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. I do not see any consensus to delete--count the votes, and note that both sides have valid argument, and all that spells NO CONSENSUS. STALEDRAFT applies in principle, but as participants here have pointed out (thank you ) there is a greater interest besides the intent of the editor who created it: at the risk of sounding like a New Critic, let us not fall for the intentional fallacy; I'm more a poststructuralist, and hope that the creator take no offense at a passing reference to the work of Barthes. , your diligence is appreciated, but 's eloquent rant (!) was really not too long to read, and I think that the MfD process is better reserved for such things that actually interfere one way or another with the way things ought to work, like fantasy reality competitions and such. As a side note, I am pleased to see "Rush" listed as a "dubious contender"--yes, if it's a verb in the imperative, it fits the bill. How do we decide? Ask the band? What if the band splits up and members disagree? No, in both cases we'll fall victim to the same intentional fallacy. Ah, the philosophy of grammar. Pardon me for bungling the paperwork by way of this "archive" template; after all these years I still don't know how to properly close an MfD. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Archive templates changed to the {{subst:Mfd top}} and {{subst:Mfd bottom}} templates, which can be abbreviated with {{subst:mt}} and {{subst:mb}}. Cunard (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences


List of unclear purpose, untouched since 2010. Page history suggests this was once an article, but I can't find the history. WP:STALEDRAFT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like WP:OR, but it is not so bad to be worth deleting. Just blank it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you always so averse to deleting stuff in userspace? What benefit do we gain from blanking vs. deleting? Aren't they achieving pretty much the same goal, except one leaves behind a blank skeleton that just takes up space? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to deleting stuff in userspace if the stuff is so inappropriate that it should have never been created, or there is a reason why it should no longer be accessable. WP:UP#COPIES, FAKEARTICLES, promotion by a SPA, and other things are very good reasons to delete. I am averse to needless insults to other editors by deleting their workspace without the courtesy of at least talking to them first.  This applies to this case. I am averse to enabling userspace busybodies, users who peruse others workspace with the apparent aim of restricting others use of userspace to their views of what it should be.  Instead, users should be free to be creative in userspace, as long as it is related to the project and not actually problematic (issues of promotion, copyright, libel, etc).  I am averse to the perpetuation of busywork, which includes the nomination of things that could be more efficiently blanked.  MfD is an important forum where important decisions are made, with long term ramifications.  These important decisions are few and far between.  Many nominations are simply not worthy.  Nominations with half baked rationales, and where the author has not been engaged, are especially unworthy.  If you were to nominate every userpage as bad as this one, you would complete disrupt MfD so much that it would be unworkable. What do we gain from blanking instead of deleting?  We gain not inconveniencing the author by not allowing him access to his edit history.  If it is deleted, and the author wants to review what it was, he has to ask for help, which is a burden compared to allowing him to access the history immediately.  If the author is active, deleting content without talking to him first is rude.  If the author is inactive, needless deletions are unwelcoming for them on their return. Blanking and deleting use the same space. Deleting does not mean deleting.  Deleting is actually worse because it creates unimportant log entries.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * tl;dr Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reserve MfD for things needing deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Most people would agree that this is something that does need deletion. You're usually the only one saying "no, don't delete it, just blank it" in cases like this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need deletion, because userspace pages don't need to have a clear purpose to others. You haven't even asked the user (I presume, I don't see that you did).  Untouched since a long time is a reason for Inactive userpage blanked, not a deletion discussion.  Users are allowed to have notes pages.  This page could be a list of topics the user would like to ensure exist in mainspace, being approached in an eccentric manner.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - UP:Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages and speedy delete WP:G13 show a strong community consensus to delete a page under development to be included as an article where that page has not been edited in months. The history of the above listed MfD page shows that the page has been worked on by the community. Over the years, the page could not be brought to a point to where it could be included as an article in main space. Jnestorius has not edited the page in three years, and edited Wikipedia on 12 November 2013, after being notified on 10 November 2013 of this MfD. It is not true that Jnestorius has not been engaged about the page. Rather, the situation is that Jnestorius has simply chosen not to be engaged. Blanking is not an alternate to deletion any more than deletion is an alternate to blanking. Each outcome needs to be supported by arguments. If this page were notes related Jnestorius's Wikipedia work and activities per WP:UPYES, then Jnestorius may have the page in his/her user pages without regard to time. Under such a situation, blanking at MfD may be a reasonable outcome depending on the circumstances. However, those proposing to blank this page have not shown a need to blank the page based on the content of the user page and process. While the user has an interest in managing their user pages, the community has a strong and important interest in managing community project pages. Focusing only on a perception of what the user's interest might or might not be does not take into account the actual user's interest or take into account the community's interest. There is strong community consensus to delete a page under development to be included as an article where that page has not been edited in months. There is agreement in this MfD that this page meets that criteria and the page should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jreferee, you misrepresent the consensus behind G13. The consensus related to tens of thousands of abandoned, mostly thoroughly hopeless AfC submissions, and thought some suggested it, there was definitely not a consensus to extend the cull into userspace. Part of the support for the G13 consensus was that mass nominating abandoned drafts at MfD was not a viable option, and it is similarly a bad idea to welcome nominations for random abandoned userpages with nothing actualyl wrong with them. You assert that there is something actually wrong with this page.  If so, there is a reason for this nomination.  However, I wish that the nominator would substantiate what is wrong with the page at the time of the nomination. On your assertion that something is wrong with the page, I don't agree. User_talk:Jnestorius/2008 & User talk:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences explicitly demonstrate other's interest, as does the editing of the userpage by other editors. Blanking is obviously an alternative to deletion, I can't imagine why you would deny that, although your sentence construction (tautologically connecting false statements) makes it very unclear as to what you are saying.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Interesting compilation of links to notable material, reasonable leeway for a productive editor.  It is clear that User:Jnestorius is not intending this for mainspace, and it is not necessary nor forbidden for userspace material to be intended for mainspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Most delete rationales provided are invalid. Article rules such as no original research don't apply to userspace, and G13 has nothing to do with userspace either. This bitey behavior is getting out of hand here. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is hardly WP:BITE. It's WP:STALEDRAFT. What do we gain from keeping this, when it's clear that the editor has let it gather dust for six years? How much staler does it need to get? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, now that Wikipedia has become mature, and there is more to do in improving the quality of existing coverage than building new content, your WikiMedian philosophy is decidedly falling towards Immediatism, away from the opposing Eventualism, and consequently, you see no value in dusty drafty old ideas? Would you agree with that that?  I can respect that, but still disagree with you imposing your philosophy on others.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I am the user in question here. The page is clearly trivia and as such will never be in the main article space. If some parallel trivia namespace, wikiproject, or wikimedia project ever exists it could be transwikied to there. I will leave others to debate how the dryer points of wikipolicy apply. I have an offline copy, so I won't cry or anything if it gets deleted. FWIW, it has been linked to a few times from outside Wikipedia. jnestorius(talk) 23:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep STALEDRAFT exists, but I am uncomfortable applying it to things in active editor's userspaces, because it's. I'd rather point out that the draft has been sitting there and ask the editor if they want to keep it or not. If they do, leave it, it's not causing any harm. Going to MfD before talking to the user about it (if the user is active, of course), strikes me as being unnecessarily rude.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to close this as no consensus, but given that the hosting user says this "will never be in the main article space," it's not an active draft, which brings us into WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. Yes, it's interesting, but that's beside the point. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Acceptable in userspace, and a good corollary to Geoffrey Pullum's list of book titles that aren't grammatical constituents. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:31, 22 November 2013 (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.