Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 March 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#U5. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth

Old unreferenced BLP that fails to assert importance. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout nominator. Unnecessary user-space meddling. BLP referencing requirement is for articles, not drafts. Assertion of importance is a requirement for articles, not drafts. VQuakr (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we have to test this in mainspace then. Withdraw and move to mainspace to afd? Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't "have to". WP:GAME; WP:POINT. It's fine where it is; quit nominating mundane user drafts at MfD. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How long would you like this to stay in userspace? Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotca, well at least you are clear with your opinion. Unfortunately policy and practice go against that view. WP:FAKEARTICLE applies. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The first six words in this draft are: This is not a Wikipedia article. it is a draft, and (as has been repeatedly explained to you) there is no policy or practice to delete user drafts. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it can never be deleted as long as template:userspace draft is on the page? If so, why does the template put this article into Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from January 2010 which states that it is done "to enable us to work through the backlog more systematically." A backlog of what? It seems like a ridiculous exemption if WP:FAKEARTICLE doesn't apply as long as the person put up "draft" for all eternity. You do realize that we are working to create an encyclopedia here, not an indefinite storehouse of people's variations of texts and musings and incomplete pages? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See comments Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Back_on_point by User:Mendaliv and User:JzG which nicely explain. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You understand that that is a discussion on a noticeboard, right? One from which you cherry picked two editors who happen to disagree with you less than some others on a tangentially related (but not the same) question? VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP applies project-wide. Moreover, it's an abandoned userspace draft that would meet G13 if it had the AfC template. Finally, this draft would be non-viable as an article. This is the precise embodiment of the catch-22 scenario I mentioned at ANI. The right answer here is to delete. If the creator returns he or she may certainly ask for it back at WP:REFUND. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: BLP of course applies everywhere, but unlike articles there is no default requirement for draft BLPs to be sourced. Viability as an article is not a criterion for deletion from user space. Can you rephrase your !vote in the context of WP:MfD and WP:UPNOT? VQuakr (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr is now taking an extremely narrow reading of various policies to the extreme on a score of MfD discussions. He/she/it is arguing we should keep this stuff "indefinitely". Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"he" works. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not arguing; explaining the guideline to you. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Don't need to. It flat out fails WP:NOT, as I've explained elsewhere. It's a non-viable article draft. Drafts are intended to become Wikipedia articles. When drafts have no reasonable chance of ever becoming Wikipedia articles, then they do not belong on Wikipedia, period. We're not exactly setting precedent here. This is a standard that MfD has been consistently applying everywhere. If you think this is article material, I encourage you to be bold and move it to article space. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MfD explicitly states that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Not being article material is not a reason to delete. If you want to operate under a new process, get consensus for the new process first. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about cleaning up userspace. WP:NOT applies sitewide. If you think userspace should be exempt from WP:NOT, you should be championing policy changes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely how does this draft violate WP:NOT? VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I would also point to your argument as squarely in violation of WP:NOTSTUPID: Wikipedia is flat out not the place to do something that's a terrible idea, like permanently keeping article drafts about topics that will never be suitable for mainspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's draft that's not going anywhere. If VQuakr wants, adopt the damn page and work on it. Else, the editor (if they return after five years) can request restoration and start anew. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky, don't forget their total site wide contribution was 2 whole edits to this page [1] so chances of them coming back to work on this approximate zero. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"approximate" is probably a little too generous. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:37, 24 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.