- 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 consensus to delete, editorially redirected to California's_36th_congressional_district_special_election,_2011#Democratic_Party. — xaosflux Talk 12:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:A Second Man in Motion/Marcy Winograd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft evidently created to support a high school teacher's failed efforts to get elected. Being a perennial failed political candidate not get a person past GNG. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I believe I also encountered this and may've planned to nominate, there are no convincing signs of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Close to "promotion", but not offensively so. Good attempt as sourcing and appropriate writing. The GNG is not relevant to userpages. No reason for deletion has been given. If an editor thinks these userpage is unlikely to be ever useful to anyone, then that editor could blank the page with an explanation in the edit summary. Keep. This nomination is a misuse of MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe gives no rational as to why this should be placed in mainspace or how it benefits the project therefore his keep vote is a misuse of MfD. Blanking is a unilateral decision, and if a lot of blanking happens other editors will be up in arms about other editors acting without community input. Mocking the nomination by saying 'no reason for deletion has been given' is offensive and disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No rationale for placing the page in mainspace is given because SmokeyJoe is not suggesting that the page should be put in mainspace. Where do you see that suggestion in his comment? A2soup (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He wants to keep it so must feel this will benefit the project as keeping a stale draft is not going to improve the project. At least there will be no objection to questioning how it stands up to GNG when in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Benefit the project" ≠ "Move to mainspace in its current form". Also, "unilateral action" is what editors are supposed to do (within reason). We do make a big deal out of telling people to WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This item shouldn't be deleted because the subject might not meet the GNG. It should be deleted because the creator of the draft hasn't been seen in four years. If SmokeyJoe wants to move this to his OWN userpage, and commit to turning this into a mainspace article within a short period of time, I'm all for that. Ravenswing 06:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you want to write off the possibility of the user returning, create barriers if they do return, set up a self-fulfilling prophesy that ex-editors don't return? And what is the benefit of hiding of the material from non-admins? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If the editor returns, they have been notified about this discussion with the names of people involved here. They can ask and have it restored with much objection. Advocate for a soft delete or something if that's your concern. You don't have any justification for keeping it where it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Justification includes that it is a good draft in the correct place authored by a productive Wikipedian. I think you don't appreciate how affronting it is to return to find your work deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete. The editor has been gone for four years and absent any indication that someone else is interested in this abandoned drafts, there is no need to keep there around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking that. I like SmokeyJoe's move and redirect option below. In the minute chance someone searches for this person, this will find the relevant information here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and blank the page. There is nothing in that page that requires blocking access for editors to read it, so there is no need for administrative action. If the author returns, or any one decides to retake the article for any reason, they could recover it from the page history without requiring a second unneeded administrative action to revert the first unneeded one. Of course, the GNG is absolutely irrelevant to pages that are not located at Article space. Diego (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't need to keep WP:STALEDRAFTs indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @P199: what exactly in the link you provided leads you to the conclusion that drafts should be deleted after a definite amount of time? VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.