Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tbmorgan74/vincent

 __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! 10:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Tbmorgan74/vincent


Also included in this nomination:


 * User:Tbmorgan74/smal local
 * User:Tbmorgan74/list of sf

These are old draft articles of an editor who has not edited since 2008. Should be deleted as WP:STALEDRAFTs. RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - nothing in staledraft says anything about the deletion of old drafts. That's surprising and somewhat ironic, I know, but it's true.  These are just drafts, leave them alone, tag them as userspace draft, or even blank them, but really why would you want to delete them?  What good does it do?  The user could come back and even if he or she doesn't, this could be useful; deleting it is not.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - From WP:STALEDRAFT: "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these)." Emphasis mine. No, it doesn't specifically say to delete them, but it also doesn't say to keep all userspace drafts indefinitely. This one most certainly isn't "under development or in active use". There has to be a line; almost two years ago would probably be on the other side of it, wherever it is.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:21, 6 July 2011
 * Why does there have to be a line? What valuable purpose towards building an encyclopedia does this serve.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:STALEDRAFT 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." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:STALEDRAFT, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTWEBHOST says nothing about drafts and is not intended for this kind of material that was clearly created in relation to work, or potential work, on the encyclopedia. WP:STALEDRAFT isn't actually about "stale drafts" it's about personal archives/preferred versions of articles and about managing to get something useless userfied and then keeping it forever without working on it.  It is not about notes, bona fide drafts of non-existent articles or meaningful re-writes that you just never get around to launching.  There is no good reason to remove such material.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your interpretations of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:STALEDRAFT are different from the community's. Cunard (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. -- Klein zach  02:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blank or redirect to The Black Hole. Sandbox related to The Black Hole.  The content is only in-universe (see WP:WAF material and trivia, and I don't think it is suitable for the article.  I might guess that this is material cut from the article, or considered but rejected for addition.  This pushes me back from saying "keep", but still I note that deleting (as opposed to blanking) has no advantage, but has disadvantage in being an administrative rejection of the users work, if he returns.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both deletion and blanking can be interpreted as rejections of the user's work. I disagree that deletion or blanking would be an "administrative rejection"—both would be a "community rejection" of unsourced content unfit for mainspace. Cunard (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The sentiment that deletion should be avoided for no other reason than that we might hurt someone's feeling is a seriously fringe one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is only a mildly uncommon sentiment. The notion is that Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal, intended for mainspace) for non-offensive material in userspace is a positive thing along the lines of Editors matter, including absent editors as editors.  The other factor I consider is to discourage needless MfD nominations by failing to reward them when other options (especially as listed at the top of the MfD page or at WP:UP) have not been addressed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 8 July 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.