Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tsapat turahe/List of Haskell Indian Nations University People

 __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: No consenus to delete. — xaosflux  Talk 00:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Tsapat turahe/List of Haskell Indian Nations University People


Old stale draft by an editor that is essentially devoid of info. Just a lead and some headings Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - All headings & sod all else, nothing worth saving. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good-faith draft, no benefit derived from deletion. In addition, there is precedent for this sort of article (e.g. List of University of Michigan alumni), so this could actually become a valid article. We don't delete userspace drafts that are non-problematic and plausible articles because they are incomplete and stale. There is no reason, either in policy or rational argument, to do so. A2soup (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The creator has buggered off so it can't become a valid article, It'll just sit there unknown until someone patrolling sandboxes/userspaces comes across it again.... where it'll no doubt be deleted, We do delete incomplete and stale userspace stuff and have done for years. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, there are long standing maintenance categories and CSD tags for exactly this reason. This cleanup activity is nothing new. Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can anyone give any actual reasoned argument, not just "that's how it's always been done"? Why has it always been done that way? Why is this precedent justified? A2soup (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If we just leave all the clutter we will not be able to find the good pages that should be mainspaced or the copyvio/attack etc that must be removed. As it is 90%+ of stale userspace is clutter or problematic. Does your home look like this? If not, why the obsession with allowing Wikipedia to accumulate crap forever? Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. If the editor returns, they can request restoration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That means there is no reason to delete. It is a bad idea to require an administrator's personal permission to return to activity.  That is not the role of administrators.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't the role of administrators then all of AFD should be shelved under that logic. It's perfectly within their role. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to equate maintenance of standards in mainspace to that in userspace. That is mistaken because mainspace is the encyclopedia-proper, userspace is the volunteers' backroom deskspace.  It is alienating to sporadic editors to have their workspace harshly judged (there is nothing allegedly wrong with this page beyond incompleteness) and deleted, and saying they can ask for permission to have it back is to ignore the alienation coming from that power differential.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is obviously intended for drafting for mainspace, there are no WP:NOT concerns that I can see.  It's value or not is for the user to worry about, it is his userspace for him to use in support of the project with broad leeway.  A couple of deletionist userspace busybodies attempting to micromanage others' userspace is not conducive to a collegial environment of editors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's value or not is for the user to worry about, it is his userspace for him to use in support of the project with broad leeway. - Unless you've gone blind you will see the editor's not edited the thing since creation (2011) and his last contrib was in "03:30, 10 June 2012" so basically when that editor goes away and abandons that draft it's then our issue and we should deal with that issue by deleting it (what actual benefit is there in keeping it??), Rubbish the only thing that's disruptive here is people like you !voting Keep on something that's not been edited in 5 years and own't ever be edited for the foreseeable future. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Davey, I think you have a short term perspective. That's OK, but it is not OK to refuse other's perspectives.  This project will not be complete in 100 years, and an editing break of almost four years is not remarkable.  A great many editors have been teenagers.  Of course they are going to take long breaks when they start serious study, or start their careers, and families.  It will then be normal for them to come back in, perhaps after 20 years.  This is the experience of many volunteer organisations, and why should Wikipedia be terribly different?  You make too much of the length of inactivity.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone here is entitled to their opinion and I have no problem with that, I personally have never known an editor to take a long term break and then come back 4/5 years later and If it does happen then I'd say it probably doesn't happen regularly, I do but I mean I'm not trying to cause arguments with you but I just genuinely don't see any need to keep them I honestly don't, BTW I've cut the language above which I apologize for, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 11:12, 30 May 2016 (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.