Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kappa/Kaaos (2nd nomination)

 __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. (non-admin closure) 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 09:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Kappa/Kaaos

 * – (View MfD)
 * 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * J I P &#124; Talk 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Java Hurricane  04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Previously nominated for deletion thirteen years ago by User:Calton with the rationale:
 * Not encyclopedic. Speedy-deletion candidate userfied in March 2005 and essentially untouched since May 2005 -- two years ago. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute or permanent home for not-ready-for-primetime articles. PROD tag added, but removed by creator with the comment "Stay the hell off my user pages please. Thanks."

The previous nomination was closed as "no consensus" and the page was kept. It has since remained untouched. User:Kappa has not contributed to Wikipedia for twelve years now. The original nomination stands, Wikipedia is not a MySpace substitute or a free web host. Thirteen years is clearly a long enough time to renew the consensus on this. In my opinion, this should be deleted. J I P &#124; Talk 14:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:COPYARTICLE - "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." given that Kaaos exists as an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kaaos. No need to delete the history, no reason not to solve this little problem by redirect, per WP:ATD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason to redirect is to avoid attribution failure, should someone edit this userpage, and then someone else merge their edits to the mainspace article. The redirect tells everyone to edit the mainspace article directly.  WP:CNR says absolutely nothing discouraging userspace to mainspace redirect, doing so is usually a good idea, and especially so when following a WP:MOVE or a WP:MERGE.  The general rule is to redirect to fix accidental forks, and people should consider that before starting an MfD discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per, no reason to redirect, and a cross-namespace redirect would serve no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a sandbox page, which are allowed to look like articles because that's where we want people to experiment and draft articles. The criteria for deletion of userspace drafts is as WP:STALE, and this doesn't seem to fit. If it's purely promotional or otherwise qualifies for CSD, go that route; if not, just ignore it. Nobody will ever see this page unless trawling through someone else's userspace looking for maintenance tasks to do. If it offends someone's sensibilities, it's permitted to blank. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which people, precisely, do you expect to "experiment and draft" this article? —Cryptic 08:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We want people to experiment and draft in userspace. If you would like to delete a sandbox/draft that was used for a purpose we explicitly allow, you need a policy-based reason to do so. On Wikipedia, there needs to be a reason to delete; not just the absence of a great reason to keep. In mainspace I'm more sympathetic, but userspace is supposed to be practice space. As long as it's part of someone's engagement with the encyclopedia (i.e. not something unrelated to Wikipedia -- which is the only thing NOTWEBHOST concerns), the quality of writing, notability of the subject, amount of content, etc. is irrelevant. If it qualifies for CSD or another clear deletion rationale, that's one thing; but this is one of many "I don't like it"/"it's just junk"/"no reason to keep" deletions that aren't based in the deletion policy. Arbitrary example: If I'm trying to figure out how to format tables and create a sandbox just with a bunch of nonsense tables on it, that page served a useful purpose for the encyclopedia because I'll be using that knowledge to improve other articles. What is gained by deleting it? It's not like we save server space (to the contrary, we increase server space by not only storing a deleted copy but also hosting an MfD page [and now a DRV page]). It's not for readers, because no reader will ever see it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's kind of my point. It's not part of someone's engagement with Wikipedia any longer; Kappa is clearly not coming back.  You're right that there's little reason to delete this.  But there isn't any to stand in the way of redirecting or blanking it, like WP:COPYARTICLE, the most directly relevant guideline, advises. —Cryptic 10:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhododendrites. No reason to bring such pages here and their existence does no harm. No objection to a redirect. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Java Hurricane  04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep no reason to bother with someone's sandbox. It is not WP:POLEMIC so let it be. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have reopened this discussion following a non-admin closure discussed at Deletion review/Log/2020 June 1.  Sandstein   08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:ATT and WP:ATD-R, the latter policy and ignored at peril. Cheers. ——  Serial # 15:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete usually I would say that it's userspace so it does no harm in keeping it, but it's been 13 years with no edits. If they do ever want it back, we could undelete it then. But there's no value to massively stale drafts like this being left. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Still nobody has cited a deletion criterion that applies. "It's been a long time" has been explicitly rejected by the community as a reason for deleting pages in userspace (see WP:STALE): "drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone". If people want to keep nominating and deleting userspace pages contrary to our guidelines, maybe it's time to change that guideline rather than blow it off. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTWEBHOST, particularly the bit that says "user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia". This is clearly a company advertisement, so better on a website not here. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ????? clearly a company advertisement... It's an 80s punk band. It's intended for Wikipedia. The user who wrote it has almost 37,000 edits.... [sigh] &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is purely just commentary on the deletion of the Kaaos article on 2005. The nom says this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, but clearly they haven't read this part: This page is commentary on an AfD, that's related to Wikipedia. It's not a personal web page, file storage, dating service area, memorial for the deceased, or promotional material. A redirect is also unnecessary, because the history of the Kaaos article before deletion was restored and can still be seen today. If attribution is a problem, just do a dummy edit which attributes the 2005 versions of the Kaaos article in the edit summary. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 08:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J I P  &#124; Talk 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is commentary on deletion policy via comment on a particular instance of it. As such it is certainly "related to Wikipedia" and NOTWEBHOST does not apply and never did. It is not promotional. No other policy-based reason for deletion has been suggested, and in the absence of any such reason, the age or alleged lack of usefullness are not valid reasons to delete this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - The user has been inactive for twelve years and this has been useless and harmless all that time. No reason to keep.  No reason to delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a user’s Wikipedia-related option in userspace. Short of being grossly offensive or insulting specified other people, these opinions should not be deleted but respected. Time of inactivity is not relevant, and even if a user is confirmed to have died, we don’t delete their recorded opinions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you have both a bolded "Redirect" and a bolded  "keep" in this discussion, which has now been open almost 2 months. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this MfD has now been open almost 2 months. It has been relisted twice, drawing several additional comments each time. Do you really think that a 3rd relisting will be helpful? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a point. Why not close it as no consensus? 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 10:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't close it in any way,, as I am a participant. you or any non-involved editor could. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ 🐔 Chicdat Chicken Database 09:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.