Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Poweezy522/D.E.M.O. : Diary Entries of a Man in Orbit

 __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:  delete. Nabla (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Poweezy522/D.E.M.O. : Diary Entries of a Man in Orbit

 * – (View MfD)
 * Updated to include the following in this discussion:

User space draft articles abandoned in early 2011. Original author hasn't edited these pages since 2011 and only returned briefly in late 2015/early 2016 for a few edits to unrelated pages. The PREF1X article was G7'd years ago as well but was restored and moved to this user space. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete All as per nomination, as abandoned for nine years by editor who has been inactive for four years. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion.  Use Inactive userpage blanked. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't need these abandoned drafts.Catfurball (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Can't see these making it as articles, so why keep them? Britishfinance (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why delete them. Is the intention to bring every worthless harmless old user subpage to MfD.  MfD nominator’s should be required to read busywork. The cost of this discussion, a new page, multiple participants, admin action, logs, and nothing really deleted, is not trivial.  These pages are *NOT* the sort of actual BLP and copyvio problems for which we had to create CSD#G13. The nom has given no valid reason for deletion compared to use of Inactive userpage blanked, recommendations at WP:UP, and policy at WP:ATD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a good point SJ; however, now that it is here, I am happy to delete. We could have some kind of simple "banner" over MfD that highlights situations that can be handled that like that to avoid clogging up MfD? Britishfinance (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think my posting these comments is enough. When MfD starts to become overloaded again, which is indicated by discussions becoming old before anyone comments, that’s when it’s time to review what’s happening. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need to keep junk around forever. If the pages were blanked before a MfD was started, fine. But now that they are nominated, just complete the process and delete them. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:17, 11 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.