Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Acceptability

 __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  keep. Withdrawn by nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Acceptability


This is an incomplete draft of an essay in the Wikipedia space. Recommend deletion or userfy. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Status: I have completed the basic essay format. -Wikid77 09:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks for the update, and updating the essay! Steel1943  (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, pointless meandering that was never finished. I can't even figure out what this is supposed to be about. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Before proposing to delete a page like this one, drafted by a still-active editor (he has edited today), the editor should first be asked about the status of the page. This is not only courteous, but saves time, as I anticipate the creator will agree that the page should be userfied or deleted if he doesn't anticipate finishing it soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ at 05:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC) on User talk:Wikid77 (18 hours prior to this comment). Per the MfD process, the notice of this MfD is acceptable enough. If the editor cares to respond, or edit the article after being posted the notice on their talk page, they will. Steel1943  (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct that you technically satisfied the notification requirement. However, in the case of an active member of the community, I believe that the courtesy of notifying him or her before starting an MfD should be afforded&mdash;particularly in a case like this one, where the page-creator might very well have responded along the lines of "gosh, I decided to forget about that page; go ahead and delete it" or "yeah, go ahead and userfy it until I have time to get back to it"&mdash;either of which would have eliminated the need for the MfD nomination and discussion altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The notification you are referring to is personal preference above the specialized notification for this forum (and, coincidentally, the notification encourages the editor to edit the article to improve it.) If you want to add your own personalized message, go for it. Also, see WP:REFUND, in case the editor desires to try to fix this article if it is deleted; the editor does have options. Anyways, this comment thread has gone off topic long enough, considering that the basis of this comment was criticism of the nominator's actions to notify the author, and not the MfD itself. Steel1943  (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy until finished, unless userfying is rejected. In that case, delete. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy if possible - Per AutomaticStrikeout. Wikid77, since he's still active, should get a lot of say in this. T  C  N7 JM  13:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy - User is still active and is also a work in progress. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 01:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably should be userfied, but the nominator should not have initiated this MfD without first attempting to talk to the active author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the article was sitting in the User:Wikid77 user space or Articles for creation space as an unfinished draft, "Userfy" would have essentially been the only option, and contact would have been made with the editor appropriately. However, this "draft" has been sitting in the main Wikipedia space for a while now, so there might have been some new editors down the live who might have taken this to be some sort of "policy formed by consensus," and this the option for deletion should be presented as well.
 * Also, Wikid77 hasn't edited Acceptability since it was created about a year and a half ago, so "Userfy" was not the first option that came to my mind, even though it still needed to be mentioned as an option. Steel1943  (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We are loath to delete essays related to the project, even if incomplete or problematic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but nor should an incomplete essay be in the Wikipedia namespace with the possibility to be considered as fact by other editors. Steel1943  (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as completed: I have finally completed the basic structure of the essay, after being on travel this week, and being distracted for months by the high-priority rewrites of templates which invoke Lua script. Although the essential purpose of the essay had been explained in the top few sentences, it needed the extra paragraphs, added at the bottom, to better explain the concepts for more readers. I apologize for waiting over a year, but the essay had been discussed at the one-year point, and other distractions had kept people away from expanding the essay text. Even after 11 years of worldwide growth, Wikipedia is still maintained by veritable skeleton crews, of a relative few volunteers each, in the numerous topic areas. Meanwhile, millions of templates have been added (over 100,000 infobox types), with many distracting the work by excessive complexity. So, that is why some essays take longer to write. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nominator's request to Withdraw. The issues with the page have been addressed by the page's author. I would close this request myself; however, due to the few votes to "delete" or "userfy," I'll have to leave closing this request to someone else's judgement. Steel1943  (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination, and that the reasons for the nomination (incompleteness, apparent abandonedness) have been addressed, I agree this should be closed now as Keep. I was about to do it myself, but since I've commented on the MfD I'll leave it for someone else to handle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2013 (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.