Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Njaker/WIP Elitloppet

 __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  that the pages should not be left live. There was no consensus to delete the pages. The inactive userpages will be blanked via being tagged with Inactive userpage blanked. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Njaker/WIP Elitloppet


These are all userspace drafts of articles, almost all of which exist in mainspace. (Elitloppet, Olympiatravet, Frances Bulwark, Swedish Trotting Oaks, Gidde Palema, Swedish Governors-General, Gustav I of Sweden etc.) None of them have been edited for years, some of them not since 2008. They are in the userspace of an editor who has not edited for well over a year, and has scarcely edited for over two years. These pages clearly fall under the provisions of WP:STALEDRAFT. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Njaker/WIPVarnhemAbbey. This is not a WP:STALEDRAFT, but a Copy Page of Varnhem Abbey, 13:25, 3 September 2008‎.  It was used for drafting before User:Njaker edited the mainspace page.  He should have then deleted it, using db-u1.  It is not a stale draft, but a used draft.  No attribution of the working draft is required, it can be deleted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Njaker/WIP_Åby_Stora_Pris. This is not a WP:STALEDRAFT but an actual initial draft used before User:Njaker created Åby Stora Pris by copy-pasting.  While retention of the history of the userspace draft is not required for our copyright compliance, deleting someone's userspace edit history without good reason is rude.  Oppose deletion.  Instead, it should be history merged, or simply converted to a redirect to Åby Stora Pris.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Njaker/Gustav I of Sweden. This is not a WP:STALEDRAFT, but a temporary userspace copy of Gustav I of Sweden.  For over a month User:Njaker drafted edits in this copy before making one big edit to the article.  I am uncomfortable with deleting a user's drafting edits, where extensive and constructively used, without their input.  It should not be history merged, as User:Njaker appears to not want to populate mainspace history with many little edits.  Instead, convert to a redirect to Gustav I of Sweden.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you think that "staledraft" means, but the policy section linked to be WP:STALEDRAFT says "Userspace ... should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, ... ", and I don't see how on earth you can think that these pages don't fall under that description. You say, for example, "This is not a WP:STALEDRAFT, but a temporary userspace copy of Gustav I of Sweden. For over a month User:Njaker drafted edits in this copy before making one big edit to the article." Am I missing something, or is that exactly what a stale draft is: a copy of an article created for drafting changes, which ceased to be used a long time ago, and is no longer being used for that purpose, or likely to be used in the future for that purpose? As for "I am uncomfortable with ...", that is pretty well along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A stale draft is a draft for new content that has not been used, especially when so old that the content is out of date. These pages require examination to see whether they could be moved to mainspace, or whether they could be returned to later.  If they have potential, they are better blanked, with Inactive userpage blanked.  "STALEDRAFT" is the most unclear reason for deletion of the three shortcuts to that section, and in my experience at MfD, a reference to "STALEDRAFT" is an indicator of a poorly prepared nomination.
 * A userspace copy is material copied from mainspace. It is OK to do this for short term sandbox editing, but these should be deleted after a short time, when no longer being actively used, and when the mainspace version has been further developed in the meantime.  These pages are almost always best deleted, as forked content creates copyright hazards.  If the sandboxing lead quickly to mainspace edits, as with User:Njaker/Gustav I of Sweden, it is conceivable that the user would appreciate having access to his edit history, and maybe the copy page is better redirected, or otherwise blanked.  In any case, old copy pages shouldn't be left live.  If you nominate pages as unused copies of articles, that is a much better nomination, easier to review, and more important to act on than a stale draft.
 * FAKEARTICLEs, whether malicious or in good faith, are misleading. Typically they non-notable subjects, sometimes even having been deleted at AfD.  Sometimes, they are mainspace-worthy content mistakenly created in userspace. A FAKEARTICLE nomination should include an explanation of why the content in inappropriate for mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Blanking/Redirecting all of them would be a safe way to proceed without potentially offending a formerly active editor that may come back. I think part of what SmokeyJoe is getting at is that the exact same stale drafts, with different context around them, might be wholesale deleted.  Since this editor was using them in a wholly appropriate way and wasn't trying to use them to get around some rule and/or consensus, there's no real pressure to delete them.  Most likely they wouldn't care if we did, but it wouldn't hurt to just redirect or blank them instead.  Gigs (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, my main concern here is the unwelcoming effect to a returning editor to find swathes of his userspace pages and edits deleted, inaccessible to a nonadmin. The nominator is correct in that all, reveiwed so far, should not be left live.  The easiest reasonable solutions are to redirect all to the main userpage, or to replace all with Inactive userpage blanked.  These allow the returning Wikipedian to, at his convenience, access the history, revert the blanking, or whatever.  (reviewing the nominated pages takes so long because I can help myself from reading the related articles)  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 22 October 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.