Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thewhitebox/Walmartsucks.com

 __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: Draftify - I'll also add a link to Draft:Walmartsucks.com at WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. - jc37 01:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Thewhitebox/Walmartsucks.com

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Draft article in user namespace of blocked user; not edited since 2014 Peter James (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plausibly notable or mergable.  Blocking users does not include clearing out their subpages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be accepted if submitted as a draft, and would have been deleted years ago. Whether subpages are deleted depends on the user; in this case they were disruptive, using sockpuppets, and probably evading a block. If an account is blocked it doesn't make the subpages exempt from deletion. Peter James (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you need a nomination rationale better than "blocker user". I don't see a reason not to leave this here for someone to pick up.  A quick search on "Walmartsucks" shows interesting stuff, google suppression of criticism of major brands, trademark issues, etc, involving multiple big brands.  Unlikely to be notable on its own, but it might fit in a larger topic.  G13 was implemented due to the tens of thousands of unreviewable drafts including BLP and copyright violations.  I have reviewed this userpage and decided there is no such issue here.  It is not an AfC page, and we do not routinely delete usersubpages for being old and unedited.  The user may return, and anther user may find it by the title and make use of it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I respectfully disagree with SmokeyJoe. We don't need dung that has been sitting around for seven years from blocked users that never had a purpose.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not being respectful to a reasonable standard. This draft is not comparable to dung, presumably you mean "animal feces".  It is a serious topic, serious legal issue, censorship issues.  It is serious references.  Many things that might be useful and will be lost if this is deleted.  "Never had a purpose"?  Disagree, this draft fits will the purpose of userspace, to build up material that might add to mainspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or draftify. This is most of a reasonable article and I wouldn't mind working on it. jp×g 05:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify (WikiProject Abandoned Drafts #8); WP:User pages allows it for long-term inactive users' pages. Peter James (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain and oppose draftification because of G13, which was expanded after some of the above guidance was incepted, and because of the systematic failure of the draftspace (i.e. it is not much more likely to be discovered and expanded there than where it is at). The only thing that will very likely occur from draftification is deletion (WP:DUD). Secondly, there is no need to delete this over that of an older draft in the userspace of any other blocked user; thus, I oppose their deletion on a class basis. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Although there's no specific time limit for drafts in user namespace it is not intended to be somewhere to keep pages permanently - five years is long enough as the user is inactive and unlikely to resume editing from that account. There are other reasons not to keep it there - most of it is quoted from sources, and although it is not a biographical article most of the content refers to living people. Peter James (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Why, but oh why, was this not just G13ed? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because (a) G13 only applies to userspace drafts if they contain a AFC submission template, which this one didn't and (b) even if this page were of a type that qualified for G13, Peter James' addition of the MfD tag counts as an edit that would have reset the clock, so your deletion tag was inappropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:11, 24 April 2021 (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.