Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riceissa/Spokes (replication system)

 __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: Deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather. — xaosflux  Talk 23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/Spokes (replication system)


COI editor, apparently listing the programs they use.  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I was a part of the same paid editing ring as User:Riceissa, so that is a COI I hold; I am not getting paid for any of my comments related to the Vipul/Riceissa ordeal, they are of my own accord. I was not asked by Vipul or Riceissa or anyone else to make any of the comments below. Ethanbas (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Riceissa/Spokes (replication system) – I think this is an internal thing the Github team uses, not Github users. Although, I'm not sure this is notable enough/has enough verifiable sources covering it to warrant its own article (could be integrated into the Github article on WP). I guess now that Riceissa is indef'd, who cares :P Ethanbas (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Riceissa/Read the Docs – It seems a notable topic worthy of drafting. The only reason justifying deletion is calling it promotion and noting that the author is blocked for promotion. "contribs) blocked Riceissa (talk"
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Move User:Riceissa/Solarized (color scheme) to mainspace based on the coverage here. I do not see any evidence that the other three will ever survive in mainspace, so delete or draftify since we're here anyways. what leads you to think that Read the Docs is notable? VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * VQuakr, if something gets draftified, will it ever get worked on, or does it effectively remain a draft forever? (big draft backlogs?) Ethanbas (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Forever is a long time. There are semi-organized efforts to find and "rescue" old drafts, but they are not really organized in a queue in which a backlog could form. VQuakr (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll refrain from taking a stance on the drafts, since I have a COI. Ethanbas (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * VQuakr, I mean it looks, or seems, tentatively, to be plausibly notably, but I don't mean to assert that it *is* notable. The history of promotion of the author a bigger problem.  I support WP:TNT for the topic, in case someone else is considering working on it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. My problem with this editor is that in my experience (after reviewing a lot of his articles) it takes a lot more work to check for spam and POV than it would to WP:TNT for any genuinely significant topic. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - They're indef-blocked, so they have no use for any of the pages in their user space. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

About reusing drafts: the unlikelihood of anyone else reusing a drat is one of the faults of our current system. I think there are at most 4 people (including myself) who rescue old drafts. I generally only do them in my primary field of interest (academic faculty and related), but even so I have a very long list, and very rarely have time to do one. We do not even have a system where when someone starts an article, it shows whether there is a pre-existing draft on the topic. The default Wikipedia search does not pick them up, and even if set to Everything only finds them if spellled the same way. , you know this system best--is there any reasonable solution?  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment I do not believe there is a system for specifically locating unused drafts by content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (I don't think I was clear above). User blocked for promotion, it is all tinged with promotion.  The topic(s) are not necessarily unsuitable, if any user in good standing requests, WP:TNT applies as good advice, provide them with the references.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2017 (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.