Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay

 __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: Userfy. and delete the shortcut &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay


This essay reflects one eds opinion from years back; it has objections on the talk page; it has been stale for years and is barely linked; the creating ed was later indeffed as a sock and has not returned. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Admin note - this is, on my part, a technical listing of a page where the nomination, made by the user signed above, got messed up. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pointless to userfy since they are indeffed, but I see this is linked in a couple of old AfDs. Should it be blanked rather than deleted for the historical reference? VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, with which I disagree. Userfication is the best option.  My apologies if my effort at concision comes across as emotive/arguing, which is not my intent at all. For context - this comes up as part of a wikignome project in which I surveyed all WP: essays bearing Template:Guidance essay.  The overall goal is cleanup of essay / help / infopage material.   And so, the reason I disagree is the following.   As this particular one has objectionable content, I first changed the tag to the more ordinary sounding Template:Essay.  That's not enough though.  This essay does not belong in the main project space.  It is a pointy 1-editor piece cited by no one but the author.  On the contrary, at the AFDs, which are at least 7 years old, other eds pushed back at the self-citation as well as the content.   That brings me here.  Options include
 * (A) deleting, which turn the 7-year old links into redlinks. I can live with that, since none of the links are in very earthshaking threads, but VQuakr raises a valid point about historical reference should someone for some reason care in the future
 * (B) blanking, which is worse than leaving it alone. The goal here is cleaning up mainspace.  Just leaving an empty page so the links stay blue and any future researchers have to dig out the version history... in my view, that makes more mess instead of less.
 * (C) usefying with a redir from mainspace.... BEST CHOICE.  That is consistent with essay guidelines, preserves the historical text, keeps the links blue, allows researchers (if any) to follow the threads to the user subpage, and finally, in in the unlikely event the editor applies to lift the indeff, they can resume working on it as a Template:Essay in development in userspace.
 * Thanks for thinking about it and holding the dustpan while I sweep the old essay floor.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I infer no emotive argumentativeness. Sweep on. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Userfy retaining redirect per nom. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete it's not going to be worked on. The user is gone. We create redlinks all the time. Why clutter up userspace with junk - there is enough junk to process in userspace already. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Worked on"!? This is an essay, which the nominator and I posit is a WP:USERESSAY hanging out in WP: space. By definition, there is no development goal for it the way there is for a draft. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, either is OK by the nom (me). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have stricken the words I shoved in your mouth keyboard. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I can see why you thought that was my preference. When I said it was "best" I meant best compromise.  I really don't care just think it should depart main space (along with other stuff of similar quality)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. Indeffed or not, it belongs in the user's userspace.  Indeffed, it is part of the editor's record of contributions.  Delete the ProjectSpace shortcut SIMTREATMENTISOK.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2017 (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.