Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SilentmanX/Mike Vaughn

 __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 history merge. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:SilentmanX/Mike Vaughn


Stale Draft DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 10:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No good reason to delete. Instead, replace contents with  Inactive userpage blanked.  Applies to all the User:SilentmanX/ pages similarly nominated.  Please do not list every stale old userpage at MfD. Just replace them with this template.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No good reason to keep. If necessary, an admin can facilitate temporary restoration so the user can move it to Wikia or something. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "No good reason to keep" has never been the threshold to delete in userspace, and neither has "stale". What does the nominator mean by "stale"? I think it is old, but not stale, as the information is not wrong. The harm here, in busy-body micromanagement of others project-related drafting, exceeds the benefit of what exactly? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If over five years without work isn't stale, I don't know what is. "No good reason to keep" isn't good enough to just start deleting pages willy-nilly, no, but when an editor makes a policy-based argument that something should be deleted, then it becomes time for someone to pipe up with a good reason to keep. This person shows no signs of meeting notability standards, and is almost certainly biography. A BLP referenced only to IMDb ideally wouldn't last ten days in mainspace. Apart from extreme inclusionism, why should it last over five years in userspace? --BDD (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Stale draft" is not a policy-based reason to delete. "Stale" more reasonably means "the content is no longer good", as in superceded. Stale is not simply synonymous with "old", as you seem to think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete We already have Mike Vaughn and there is nothing to merge from this WP:STALEDRAFT anymore, so it may be deleted as useless to our encyclopedia project. It is not ok to keep forked copies of articles in userspace forever. jni (delete)...just not interested 19:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete in favour of Mike Vaughn is quite reasonable. Sorry for not checking for that article, but really the nominator should have. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * History merge with Mike Vaughn. It was the original mainspace version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2014 (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.