Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:John Eben/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:  mostly no consensus, delete Holy Roman Emperors. Between a roughly even vote split and mostly "weak" votes from both sides, I see a weak consensus to delete the Holy Roman Emperors page and no consensus for anything else. signed,Rosguill talk 22:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:John Eben/Books

 * – (View MfD)
 * (duplicates book in book space)
 * (there isn't one without the number)
 * (there isn't one without the number)
 * (there isn't one without the number)
 * (there isn't one without the number)
 * (there isn't one without the number)
 * (there isn't one without the number)

This user has not edited since 2015, and primarily created books, both in user space and in book space. None of the books in user space have been edited since 2015. Most of the books in book space have at least been placed in categories within the past quarter, and so are being left alone. We don't need abandoned books in user space by departed editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a diversity of opinion on what to do with abandoned userspace stuff, once people leave Wikipedia. This isn't needed, but it isn't harmful either, I do think it's better to suggest a soft-delete in case of the very minimal chance the user returns. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Soft delete so WP:REFUND can apply per above. I haven't looked through all the listed books, but I do trust 's judgment. This strikes a reasonable balance by getting rid of minimally useful (quasi-)crud whilst also allowing the possibility of undeletion, should the editor return and desire to update and improve it. Doug Mehus  T · C  00:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Soft Delete Having had time now too look it over, while there's an outside chance for a few of these being a starting point, I'm on the fence about whether any of it would save time vs starting from scratch. The soft deletion will allow their return if requested. The more I think about it, the more I feel some kind of PROD-like process is needed for userspace, but this isn't the time or place to address that. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, a PROD-like process would be useful for the userspace, so long as it's not abused, as that would allow undeletion, correct? Doug Mehus T · C  03:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the whole point make it easy to soft-delete without discussion after a reasonable period of time, while allowing that later they can be undeleted automatically on request. The main difference is that users may repeatedly retire and unretire, so you would need to tweak the rules to allow for this "PRODing" to occur more than once for a given userspace page given a sufficiently lengthy separation in time. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposed deletion for books exists, and it can be used for userspace books as well. Granted, these don't seem to meet the reasons listed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glades12 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - What's the policy-based reason for deletion here, because I don't see one. Userspace pages explicitly do not have an expiration date. "We don't need it" isn't a reason for deletion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't need, necessarily, policy-based reasons to delete things. Deletions can be case-by-case, non-precedent-setting where one or more good reason(s) exist. Nevertheless, that's why I think soft delete is best, so WP:REFUND can apply should the editor return, and decide to resume cleaning up, improving, expanding, and editing this book. The rationale is very similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jakefrdrck/sandbox where a long departed editor made a few edits to a draft article, then left. There's no point in keeping crud from long-departed editors. Doug Mehus T · C  19:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not based on whimsy. It's based on our policies and guidelines. If there's no policy/guideline-based reason for deleting something, we shouldn't delete it. These discussions are, in practice, an exercise in applying our policies and guidelines to particular cases. One could argue for IAR, sure, but that's for unusual cases where the letter of the PAG prevents an outcome in line with their spirit. I don't see that here. It's just an arbitrary "I don't like it"/"we don't need it"/"it's not so useful"/whatnot. We need a reason to delete, no an absence of a reason to keep. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll concede you have a solid point. As I mentioned there isn't really a solid consensus on how to handle abandoned userspace stuff, aside from cases of obvious policy violations. There's even an ongoing discussion WRT when blanking is appropriate, and IMHO there's not much space between blanking pages and soft-deleting them. I guess I've tried to apply WP:Commonsense and working on a book by starting using some of the above would hinder anyone who did so compared to beginning from scratch, others are duplicates of existing books. I do remember thinking some of them might be in more or less neutral territory, and on reflection I should have provided a more nuanced !vote above identifying those since I have neither the time nor desire to go back through now. But I could see how someone might disagree as to whether this would really improve Wikipedia vs just letting them be. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D articulates well what I was trying to say. To add to what they said, to paraphrase the points made by BD2412 and others in the above MfD, this is akin to a departed employee who leaves abandoned items on their desk. Common sense would suggest that we do not need to keep those abandoned, unmaintained items forever on the off chance they may return. A quick trip to WP:REFUND is all the editor needs to do (it's even linked from the log entry that is, in turn, linked from the notification on their talkpage), and it'll be restored later that same day. It's hardly a hassle compared to trying to, say, getting a Draft: space article name unsalted. For all of the above, the lack of maintenance, and poor quality that, in turn, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia, not to mention the fact that these books, collectively, generated substantially less pageviews than even one of the linked articles. There's just no reason for keeping this stuff. A soft delete with WP:REFUND applicability is a sound compromise. Doug Mehus T · C  02:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a 'the' now, woot woot! 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, I meant to reference just your IPv6 address as it sounded better than "the IP editor." At this puts a number to you as an editor. ;)
 * Apologies for the stray initial article. Doug Mehus T · C  03:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens I found it amusing, now to convince everyone else to start doing it =P 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep all except Holy Roman Emperors. I don't really see a reason to delete these; they don't contain any libel, false info or other violations of User pages, and could potentially be of historical interest and be worked on again of the user returns. However, I am fine with deleting Holy Roman Emperors because it's a duplicate of the same title in book space. Glades12 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2020 (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.