Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/2013 June mass MfD

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 17:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/2013 June mass MfD

 * – (View MfD)

This page's purpose seems to have been to make some kind of point about how terribly unfair it was for all these items to have been deleted. The user who created it had also created an entirely new subprocess of the incubator, the "greenhouse" out of thin air and was literally the only person ever to use that now-deleted process.

This page has been edited only only one single time when it was created six-and-a-half years ago. In short, it serves no purpose and has never been used in any meaningful way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This relates to the long running highly controversial inclusionism versus deletionism of drafts.   It relates to Template:Promising draft, with all the same pros and cons and grief.  Although only half interested, only half because I think newcomers should not be encouraged to write new topics anywhere before learning to edit existing topics,  but I have a lot of sympathy for the notion that drafts made by newcomers should be sorted into the promising versus the rest.  Most draft managers (as opposed to reviewers) seem to focus on identifying the worst.  Now that we have WP:CSD#G13, there is little point in that, but if some users could classify the promising, and create navigation tools to them, even put them in a Greenshouse, that is not a half bad idea.
 * At the very least, this should be offered to its author for userfication. Was that done?  What was the answer?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The person who created this has been inactive for the last 21 months, (unless they've been socking to avoid the topic ban which was the apparent cause of their abrupt retirement, which seems to be an open question but not relevant for our purposes here) and even they only made one edit to this page. I just don't see this as serving any legitimate purpose for anyone other than to make some obscure point that was never made explicit. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is not obscure, but I agree that proponents of the point routinely fail to make it explicit. The point is: Promising stuff should be nurtured, not deleted by a blind process simply for being old.  Personally, I am not on board with the point, but I don't support deleting records of poeple trying to make the point.  Userfy it for its creator.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - This really should not have been a subpage of a Wikipedia talk page. It really should have been a user page.  Since the user has been inactive (at least is not known to have been active) for more than one-and-one-half years, it can be gotten rid of.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Per nom and RMcC. There seems an element of soapboxing here. Regardless, not something that usefully contributes to WP. Britishfinance (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2019 (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.