Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R36/Sandbox2

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:R36/Sandbox2


This appears to be an abandoned draft of R160 (New York City Subway car) prior to its merge from R160A and R160B. Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT since those pages have since been merged. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - It looks to me like a draft of the merged version, dearest sir... Take a look at the lead. Or the large pictures staring you in the face on the right side. Or anything else in the page, for that matter. Since it is a draft of the merged version, the user might still be wanting to work on it, and it hasn't been a year yet (which is generally think is what drafts should be given before we delete them), I think the page should be kept.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 17:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you meant now; the user created this in trying to figure out what the new version of the article would look like; I didn't see that this user was the one making the merge; I thought you meant that the user had copied the article to their userspace before the merge, and since a merge has now happened, it is pointless. Forgive my slight rudeness in my above comment. :) However, this still could be kept, if the user wants to work on it later; I still think that a year should be given to drafts.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 17:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what I meant; it was a draft for a merged article, the merge went ahead as planned, now its abandoned and can be deleted as its purpose has been served. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi878, the precedent for userspace drafts at MfD is that they are deleted after six months of no activity unless there are special circumstances (e.g. the draft is promotional and non-notable in which case it should be deleted quickly or the draft is notable in which case it should never be deleted). Cunard (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you show me examples of this precedent? I haven't seen it before, but it is very possible that I have totally missed it. Either way, I still think that it should a year, not six months.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been a long precedent for a six-month limit:
 * November 2006 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dj5dj)—From : "User has not been seen for six months."
 * November 2007 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rlw3d/sandbox)—From : "... If this user is a professional, he may be busy - 2 months is not relatively "long-term". I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.  Six months seems "long-term", but then again, it is all subjective. ..."
 * December 2008 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:8"Jobby)—From : "Close to six months, but not a full six months yet."
 * May 2009: Consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allan Peterkin was with, who stated that six months was a sufficient period of time.
 * September 2009 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity))—From : "If the page just sits there for three to six months, then raise it for deletion. However, it seems a bit outside our standard good practice to delete the userified page immediately after the AfD."
 * November 2009 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coopkev2/Sandbox)—From : "User page that is not being updated in six months."
 * May 2010 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jorge Stolfi/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines)—From : "Four months does not reach "indefinite" for a userfied article. I think we need to recognze that many editors appear, go away for a while, and reappear. Including many who are mainstays of WP, or who become such. Let's try using 6 months as reasonable time frome."
 * August 2010 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Molleeb/Pregnancy.org)—From : "I concur that many major editors have left for more than four months without having everything deleted. Precedent has been six months as a reasonable time for userfied material - try then."
 * November 2010 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Firl21/Evin Erwin)—From : "User BLP draft, abandoned for over six months, by an editor who has not edited for over six months. Un sourced ."
 * November 2010 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lew Loot/What Men Know that Women Don't)—From : "Userfied only a week or so ago? A teeny bit short of the six months which was discussed as being a reasonable length of time, and I would suggest that 2 weeks is decidely being exceedingly short of that standard."
 * November 2010 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Satish217 1990/Vada Pochae)—From : "A fake article in userspace, hasn't been edited by it's creator in six months, unlikely to ever become an actual mainspace article."
 * April 2011 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jazz2jazz/Benjamin C. Sands, Jr.)—From : "Per Collect, renominate when it is inactive for 6 months, 6 weeks is to short to be sure it really is a stale draft."
 * Occasionally, consensus has been to delete user pages that have not reached the six-month mark because they were bad faith, soapboxing creations (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lew Loot/What Men Know that Women Don't), a userfication whereafter the user became uncommunicative and lacked interest in improving the draft after wasting an admin's time (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rlw3d/sandbox), or an "attempt to subvert wikipedia's AfD process" (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity)).

When I see promotional pages about non-notable topics, I support deletion despite six month's not having passed ("Spam should always be deleted, regardless of its having been here for six days, six weeks, or six months.") Cunard (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that single people making these comments on the MfDs indicates precedent, you may want to rethink that. Just because people made said comments, doesn't mean that they automatically are what should be followed by everyone from then on. Here are my responses to your links:
 * The nomination was withdrawn. The fact that only a single person mentioned inactivity for six months doesn't indicate precedent/consensus/whatever.
 * They did not say that six months is when all should be deleted; they said "Six months seems "long-term", but then again, it is all subjective."
 * Quite a few keep !votes, with the page being kept. Again, the mention of six months was one person's opinion.
 * The mention of six months was not talking about a draft that had been sitting there for six months; there were talking about an improper use of the userspace, by a user who made no edits in the entire time his account had existed, except for creating that improper use of userspace. It wasn't a draft; it was a user autobiography.
 * One user's opinion.
 * Read the Keep by Collect and the struck Weak Keep by Nsk92 (which still applies, because it was struck for a different reason). Obviously, not everyone shares this view.
 * Well... Both who commented on it said the same thing, so I don't really have much of a response for this one.
 * Wow. I !voted "delete" on that one. Anyhoo, that is the opinion of one user.
 * One user saying that.
 * One user.
 * No response.
 * No response.
 * Many times, there are references to six months having been discussed as a reasonable amount of time, particularly by Collect; I would love to see where this discussion happened. At any rate, this doesn't look aything like an overwhelming consensus to me.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 19:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, it seems that I am not the only one thinking this sort of thing.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 20:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that single people making these comments on the MfDs indicates precedent, you may want to rethink that. – you asked for examples of this six-month precedent ("Can you show me examples of this precedent?"). Please don't waste my time asking for these examples if you are going to flippantly dismiss them (One user's opinion, One user saying that, One user, No response).

The list of discussions and the discussions' results show a de facto consensus at MfD of a six-month time limit on unedited drafts. There is no "single" discussion where editors decided on a six-month time limit. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I misworded my request; what I was looking for was some form of consensus that 6 months is the accepted limit. Also, I wasn't trying to be rude when asking where that discussion might have happened; I genuinely did want to see it. I am sure there are many examples of people thinking six months is too short, but I am not wanting to continue this; I doubt either of us will change our mind.   Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 18:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nitpick "the precedent for userspace drafts at MfD is that they are deleted after six months". This is not completely right.  There also has to be something wrong with the draft.  If the draft is clearly in the direction of becoming an article on a subject that belongs on mainspace, we don't delete.  Such drafts don't get nominated.  The six month thing is about giving editors a chance to make something out of a draft that's not quite right, that if it were in mainspace, it would be promptly deleted.  In this case, the thing wrong with the draft is that it is not a draft for a nonexistent desired article, but forked content.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP, which states: "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. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."

Given that the page has not been edited since November 2010, over six months ago, and given that it exists at R160B (New York City Subway car), it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that because the content has been merged from R160 (New York City Subway car), this page should be deleted. This outdated page violates the "old revisions" clause at WP:UP. Editing an old version and copying the changes to the current article would result in the loss of the intervening changes. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT per Acps110 and Cunard. -- Klein zach  00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NB. Citing STALEDRAFT is misleading, citing WP:UP#COPIES better applies.  This is old forked content, not draft material with hope.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2011 (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.