This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, for the period 1 January 2012–31 December 2012. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Speedy redirect of WikiProject China/Uyghurs workgroup
Shrigley nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Uyghurs workgroup here on the basis "Inactive since 2006, and never really had much of an infrastructure anyway. Only one out of the two participants has edited since that year.'
I was surprised that Nihonjoe immediately closed the Mfd (with a redirect) before anyone had a chance to comment (see [1]). Maybe he could explain why? This is not the usual way we do this process. --Kleinzach11:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason to have a discussion regarding that page. It's an internal project page, nominated by someone who isn't even a member of the project and so has no clue about what they might want, and he didn't even tell the project he had nominated their page. Redirecting it to the project is the best way to deal with it. If the project wants to do something else with it, they can do something with it. As it states at the top of the MFD page under "WikiProjects and their subpages", "It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable." (emphasis added) As the task force/workgroup was not incompletely created and is not entirely undesirable, there's no reason to do anything other than redirect it to the project. It's a complete waste of time otherwise. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've notified the China project here and it seems they are not bothered, so although the closure was out of line, the redirect itself is apparently no problem. Nihonjoe is a controversial Mfd editor here (see here and here). He should never again close Mfds where he has a conflict of interest. --Kleinzach06:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the links show Nihonjoe to be a controversial Mfd editor. However, I do agree that Speedy Keep should be tightly constrained to the listed criteria, much as I said here. I agree that someone should not close, let alone speedy close, any discussion where they are WP:INVOLVED. I'd like to see the "generally preferable" sentence quoted above made more prescriptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we can all agree to be called 'controversial' (which is not derogatory term) since we are all involved in the controversy? I, and those who think like me, would like to see the "generally preferable" sentence quoted above made less prescriptive. Mfd discussions have repeatedly endorsed the deletion of completely insubstantial, failed and stillborn WikiProjects.SmokeyJoe and Nihonjoe are in a minority on this issue. --Kleinzach06:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I really doubt we are in the minority as we are both quite moderate on this issue, and more people tend toward moderation in regard to deletion than either extreme. Neither of us is completely against deletion when appropriate, and both of us have even supported such deletions in the past. What we both seem to be against is process for process' sake and inappropriate deletion of projects or task forces which in no way meet any requirements for deletion. If you'd like to get broader input on the issue, feel free to start an RfC to bring more community input on the issue. I'm always willing to support what the community decides, even if I don't agree with it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Restoring the archive (putting discussions back in chronological order)
MiszaBot II was putting finished discussions in the wrong archive, see [2]. I've tried to restore all the topics in the right chronological order. (No small job!) I hope I have succeeded. If not please say so! --Kleinzach02:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The closure of WikiProject Normandy Mfd was casual: "The result of the discussion was A no-consensusy keepy mergy redirecty something". Someone congratulated the admin on a 'great close' and he/she explained "I amuse myself... glad you liked it too." [3] ' ' So, are we just here to amuse admin? And I was thinking closers were supposed to be serious and solution minded! --Kleinzach03:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of not omitting the bits that inconveniently make the above user's point irrelevent, I also wrote "There's definitely not enough conseus here to delete outright; some people propose merges of some sort. Suggest discussing merger details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Normandy, but this isn't going to be deleted, as there is not enough support for that." I have suggested that if he doesn't like that conclusion, and thinks a different recommendation would have represented the comments of the MFD, he should raise the matter at WP:DRV, which he has steadfastly refused to do. So I am at a total loss as to what resolution he wants to this matter. --Jayron3204:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a hard one and I can see how the closing leaves no indication of direction - BUT I dont think the Mfd process has the authority to force this group of editors to make the project a taskforce. The Mfd was about its deletion not a merger - if there is "no-consensusy" on a merge I dont see what more can be done here. At the project level there could be a talk about a merger pointing to this Mfd and its recommendations.Moxy (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
There was about a dozen comments with at least 4 distinct solutions (delete outright, keep outright, upmerge daughter Norman projects to main Normandy project, upmerge Normandy project to main France project) with all solutions having multiple supports, but none having more than about 4 supports each. Adding together all possible merge solutions puts the "merge something into something else" as the option with the widest support, but it is unclear what sort of merge needs to occur. Regardless, the MFD specifically asked about deleting the project, which didn't have any support at all. Given that there was no chance of deletion based on the existing, 14-day old discussion, there wasn't any need to keep the MFD open any more. Mergers do not require formal MFD discussions. They require use of talk pages. So I recommended that the nature of the merger could be discussed in further detail, as "some" form of merge option seemed to have the most support. Still, the basic point is this isn't going to be deleted so I am still flummoxed at what other conclusion the complainant in this case wished me to reach. --Jayron3205:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Two things need to be pointed out to the closer Jayron32:
1. There were three pages being discussed not one. We will all agree that there was a general consensus for keeping Wikipedia:WikiProject Normandy either as a project or a taskforce, but this did not apply to the other two pages. Only Chnou argued for keeping them. (Iberville first argued for this and then later changed his mind)
2. Ten Pound Hammer asked a question on the 25 January 2012, but the Mfd was closed before any of us had a chance to answer.
I read every word of the MFD, thank you very much. I also made notes. I can scan them and email them to you if you would like. I don't take kindly to you making up stories about things of which you have no knowledge, like the processes inside of my head, or what goes on in my office when I am working at my computer and closing MFDs. I have no time for that. Secondly, if you think I closed it incorrectly, create a discussion at WP:DRV. This is not the correct forum to dispute a closed discussion. DRV is. Go there now, as you have been told repeatedly, and start a discussion. I am at a total and complete loss why you refuse to use that forum, which is designed for this purpose. --Jayron3202:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I read the discussion and it was a clear "no consensus" and each of the suggestions mentioned in the close had been seriously proposed. The operative rationale was "no consensus" which appears fully proper and correct. That a sense of humour was shown is not a problem at MfD, it was not a close by Baseball Bugs <g>, and as the close was proper, cavils about it are not, unless you go to DRV which is the proper place for such discussions. Not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The close looks a good one. The route to DRV is well signposted. Suggesting that the closing admin didn't read the MfD is just offensive. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
ANI nomination closing
Is it possible to close the ANI nomination in a way that doesn't break the section heading and its listing in the TOC? (I assume it'll still be listed on this page for seven days.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess it is simply common practice that when you close an MFD discussion, you do it in a way that screws up the MFD page by removing the discussion header and breaking the Table of Contents. That is really, really stupid, but if you people who hang out here regularly are happy with that crap, who am I to interfere. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing the problem is caused by the collapsing. Does anyone care about the collapsing? Would anyone mind if closed MFD discussions looked like closed AFD discussions? Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to fix the MfD for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dr. Naveed IQBAL which another editor had misformatted (with no header). But when I tried following the instructions that say that the header should be
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
... I got errors -- the entire base page got included within the MfD page.
Upon checking the base page itself, I saw there are better instructions in the MfD warning box that say, "Then subst {{subst:Mfd2|pg=User:Dr. Naveed IQBAL|text=...}} to create the discussion subpage." So I tried it without the "{{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:..." stuff, and it worked.
Shouldn't the instructions say
{{subst:mfd2| pg=FULLPAGENAME| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
I don't see that there's any need for that when the history that would be copied across would be that X made a comment at Y o'clock, when the discussion shows that X made a comment at Y o'clock. It's a rather different kettle of fish to articles where individual contributions are not signed and dated. I've added dummy edits to both discussions pointing to the source / destination, which is enough. BencherliteTalk09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From MFD, WP:STALEDRAFT seems to kick in at about three months/90 days after the draft is posted to a user page. We see a lot of these staledraft MfD requests. Some MfD staledraft requests are way to early and other are for drafts that haven't been touched in years for editors who no longer around. Then I thought about the workings of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and thought maybe we could use Wikipedia:Slow deletion. The lead of the Wikipedia:Slow deletion page would read something like:
Proposed slow deletion is a way to suggest that a user page or subpage that looks like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or preferred version of disputed content (wording taken fromWP:STALEDRAFT) is a deletion candidate. If the user does not object after being notified on their talk page, nominated pages are deleted after the longer of fourteen days from the page being tagged or ninety days from the date the user page/sub page was first posted. A user draft page may be SLOWPRODed no more than two times, once before ninety days from the date the user page/sub page was first posted or once after ninety days from the date the user page/sub page was first posted. This process reduces the load on the miscellany for deletion (MfD) process, but should not be used to bypass discussion at MfD. Proposed slow deletion is only applicable to a user page or subpage that looks like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or preferred version of disputed content; it cannot be used in any other namespace.
I see this working well for user pages where the user has left the project and still has old subpage drafts that fall under WP:STALEDRAFT. The user draft pages can always be MfDed, but SLOWPROD may be a better first choice than MfD. Thoughts? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you are tying to achieve here, as mostly those drafts are not harmful. I would suggest that old revisions or preferred versions are higher priority to delete. And half developed drafts are kept for a longer time. There is no deadline here, so we should be able to give editors years to develop their userspace draft. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Being harmful isn't an element or factor in the STALEDRAFT guideline. Old revisions or preferred version become drafts in user space that, if not worked on, shows that the page is being used solely for long-term archival purposes. The STALEDRAFT guideline does give deadline in that userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host such pages. The user can object to the proposed slow deletion, If a user is developing a draft and they don't want it deleted via the above process, they can respond to the user talk page notice about the SLOWPROD placed on their talk page merely by objecting to the deletion. After that, the SLOWPROD notice cannot be replaced other than as noted in the above proposal. As for the deletion, the outcome would be a prod delete and other aspects of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion would apply. For example, an administrator may decide on their own to restore a user space draft that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without anyone having to make the request at requests for undeletion. In either case, SLOWPROD should not be used to bypass discussion at MfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I oppose this. Prod, though a valuable time saver when used as it was intended to, is often used for gaming the system. - "Let me put this up and see if the time runs out before anyone notices". And a Prod-like thing for userspace subpages, which are likely to have even fewer watchers (perhaps only the user)? No. This is a drama-magnet waiting to happen. There's no reason that these can't be sent to MfD. It's not like MfD has such a huge amount of noms that it can't continue to handle these. - jc3713:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
support for articles that are not old revisions/preferred versions of WP articles. Oppose for all other uses. I know of several user-space articles which are written after oral versions of papers/lectures etc. were delivered but which are waiting for the publication of the lecture as an article or book to have a reliable source to cite in order to move to mainspace. These things can take much more than 90 days. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I support the general idea but I think the proposed version is a bit too harsh. It should be possible for any user to halt the deletion by objecting and the page should be tagged for a fixed amount of time before deletion (both in a similar way to PROD). I also think a time limit of 90 days is too short, and something like 6 months would be preferable. I don't think the small number of people watching pages in userspace should be used as a counter-argument to proposals like this, since the vast majority of articles subjected to PROD are very new or very obscure and hence are unlikely to be watched. Scrutiny of proposed deletions comes from people patrolling categories of articles proposed for deletion, not through watchers. Hut 8.512:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Uncontroversially abandoned drafts (e.g. those created by inactive users) can be moved to WP:ABANDONED, as already suggested at WP:STALEDRAFT. Content which could be classified as being included against guidelines could perhaps be addressed via a new CSD#User pages criterion. -- Trevj (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - It is far, far better to use discussion and compromise to deal with deletion than the non-discussion processes (CSD and PROD). Non-discussion deletions exist only in cases where the deletion is 1. Unambiguously against policy and 2. Would place undue burden on a system that can't handle it. Stale Drafts are ambiguously against policy (we all have our own ideas of when a draft is "stale"); it requires a judgment call. And, frankly, MFD is not terribly backlogged. There's never a case where there is non-admnin backlog (that is, there are never any pieces of Miscellany that sit for a week without discussion and consensus being built). The only way to make MFD more efficient is to have an Admin who comes by daily to clean out the old business. The Community is of two minds: First that the ends justify the means, but secondly that the means exist to encourage participation. I think this is a case for the latter, not the former. More good is done by explaining and discussing User: namespace deletions that would be done if that rule were ignored. Achowat (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. (1) Userspace is poorly watched, sometimes not even by the user. (2) Often, users interested in cleaning others' userspace have a poor judgement on what is stale/useful. You could try to write a guideline on what constitutes a "stale" draft, or on reaonable limits for deleted then userfied material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Speedy deletion of File:Bedtime.jpg (which contained only {{restricted use}}) was declined three times, because one admin thought having it listed as "restricted use" was somehow equivalent to salting it and then another admin thought it was too controversial to CSD. Then I closed the not-really-file for deletion as speedy delete.
Then there was another request where someone apparently didn't realize {{db-nofile}} was an option, and since there's no real guidance for this situation there was nothing to tell them.
A more "valid" hypothetical situation would be a file page containing only local categorization (making F2 not apply) that someone finds unnecessary and wants to nominate for deletion. Anomie⚔01:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Support I'm still not sure I 100% understand the issue, but if it is the page describing the (non-existent) file that is up for deletion, rather than the file itself, MfD would seem to be the more appropriate venue. Main thing is that it does not ping-pong between the two fora. --Surturz (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - It seems that there is a user error in each of your examples. The point of CSD is to create entirely uncontroversial standards for Xs that would just bog down XfD. If CSD#F2 isn't being used correctly, than it's an issue of education and not of process. Achowat (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
True, the two actual examples provided were best handled through F2, and that wouldn't change. But how would you handle a situation where someone wants to delete a local file page containing only local categorization and someone else contests the deletion? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense at WP:FFD since there isn't any file being deleted, and it's the exception to F2. Anomie⚔20:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Part of me thinks it would be far easier to expand the CSD. I think anyone who thought about it long enough would see that there's no benefit to discussing these deletions. Achowat (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I do. The File: namespace, for better or worse, is a beast of an entirely different color from the rest of what MFD is designed to deal with and it seems unwise to ask entirely inexperienced editors to decide the fate of evidently-difficult situations in a forum where one wouldn't expect it. Achowat (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this process designed to deal with everything that isn't handled by a more specific process? 'File' pages without actual files are not really more difficult to understand than MediaWiki-namespace pages or Books, for example. Anomie⚔13:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
File: pages without files are speedily deletable per F2. In fact, absent an actual example of a non-file File: that went through Discussion as opposed to XfD, then this is an Academic conversation and, I fear, not particularly useful. Achowat (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
How about we extend the proposal, to make MfD the catch-all venue for problematic deletions?
Current policy
Pages in these namespaces may be nominated for deletion here:
Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, the various Talk: namespaces, and userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Proposed policy
What may be nominated for deletion here:
Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, and the various Talk: namespaces
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
I would exclude article space from your proposed policy. When in doubt, article space pages should be sent to AfD. Otherwise I think your proposal makes sense. Monty84503:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Could an example be formed for the new standard? (Perhaps even a real-world 'this has happened' situation). I just think that there is rarely, if ever, a time when RFD and TFD could be disputing over where to put it. Achowat (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Can MFD be extended to cover deletions of disambiguation pages? (there have been various proposals for a DfD or extending RfD to cover it, instead of having AfD handle it) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Whats wrong with letting AFD handle them? For consistency it makes sense that all article space deletions that don't have a specific alternative venue should end up at AfD. Monty84503:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, one of the more recent proposals WP:DFD, considered that dab pages are not articles. Several discussions at RFD considered that dab pages function more as multidestination redirects. As dab pages function under different criteria than articles or redirects, they should be treated by some other process. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Is MfD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of userpages? (July 2012)
I am closing this discussion with the outcome: There is clearly no consensus to adopt the proposed language. A misleading announcement may have distorted discussion somewhat, but most of the editors commenting are experienced and must be presumed to have read the proposal they are commenting on. This will not stop MfD discussions of pages based only on parts of the page content -- a page containing inappropriate content for user space is not automatically off-limits to MfD simply because other content on the page is appropriate. DES(talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed: MfD is an acceptable venue to discuss portions of pages in the userspace, where the portion, if it were the whole page, would render the page deletable by MfD standards.*
Addendum: Prior to bringing part of a page to MfD, the MfD nominator should attempt to boldly remove the material and notify the user. If the removal is contested and the two users cannot reach an agreement, the MfD nominator is allowed to bring the page to MfD. (addendum added 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC) per Monty845 (talk·contribs)'s suggestion) Cunard (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I support the idea that portions of pages can be placed up for discussion at Mfd for pages in the userspace only. I would've given my full support, if it wasn't for Nyttend who spurred my thinking. When a user thinks that a portion of an article, template, or something of that sort should be removed, the discussion would normally occur on the talk page of that page; users who are interested and/or watching that page provide input, and a rough consensus is established through discussion there. That is because such pages are a collaborative effort. As Nyttend implies, one wouldn't open up an Afd discussion for a section of an article; they would start a discussion on the talk page of that article. Pages in the userspace, on the other hand, are more personal, and are not the work of the Wikipedia community; they are not collaborative like the rest of Wikipedia. When a user thinks part of a userpage should not be there, where should they go? Going to the talk page of a page in the userspace is a bit odd to me, per my reasoning that userpages are more personal and non-collaborative - plus, no one's watching them (possibly). As such, bringing such discussion here would be appropriate IMO. As SmokeyJoe says, portion-of-pages-for-deletion discussions should occur "only in the absence of a better venue"; in all cases, I think the talk page is the better venue except for userpages, in which an Mfd discussion is the best option. All other pages that fall under miscellany, such as pages in the "Wikipedia" and "Help" namespaces, should have any discussion regarding parts of their content being removed placed on their respective talk pages. One could say, "Well, Mr. Smarty-Hamster-Pants, why shouldn't discussions for the entire page themselves take place on the talk page of the page, per your reasoning?" The problem with that is that talk pages are deleted after their respective articles are deleted (I just said that in case anyone brings that up). Thanks, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 03:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Completely uncontroversial, RfC unnecessary A userpage that has a section that violates policy can be deleted. It can be recreated by the user in a way that does not violate policy, since unlike AfD, the consensus to delete a page in userspace usually does not prevent recreation, and never does if it is their main userpage. In this sense, all userpage MfDs are already like this. This RfC is kind of moot. Gigs (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Support essentially per the SuperHamster comment above. There is no other venue for discussing whether a section of a user page is appropriate. For an article (or a page in any other namespace) the talk page would be used, but here that's not an option because that's not the purpose of a user talk page and because user pages are not written collaboratively. Hut 8.515:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Support - If a user is unwilling to remove an offensive portion of a page in their userspace, there are very few options available. You could remove the content and fully protect the page, which doesn't seem appropriate. It seems the best option is to discuss that portion of their user page in a central location, and decide whether it should be kept or removed. MfD seems to me like a perfectly appropriate location to discuss such a topic. -Scottywong| yak _19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose proposed text
Oppose proposal. Three of the five examples would be protected speech if displayed in a way such that they were publicly visible outside of Wikipedia, but clearly attributed to the originator and not located where the publishing of all material (by posting of signs, etc.) was prohibited. Since users are typically permitted to edit pages in userspace, and those pages are clearly attributed to the user in question, the community should not presume a right to dictate exactly which parts of a page in userspace should be deleted based on the consensus of participants in an MfD process. Speedy deletion criteria in classes G and U are already applicable to pages in userspace, and can be applied where content is sufficiently objectionable to warrant immediate deletion of the page containing it. Where the page is generally acceptable, objectionable content should be raised on the user's talk page, with assistance requested from a third editor or through an RFC if an agreement cannot be reached. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:FREE is neither policy nor a guideline. To be clear, my understanding of freedom of expression is based in Canadian law, which differs substantially from US law, but I'm stating a personal opinion that Wikipedia should try to treat its contributors in the same way we would expect to be treated in public. The consensus will be whatever it turns out to be, but the certainty that Wikipedia can discriminate under US law is immaterial. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, all are permitted to edit other users' userspace, but if opposed by the user, usually the other has no option but MfD or some other administrative forum.
There is no presumption of a right to dictate allowable usage of userspace pages. It is absolute. It is clear policy. Users do not own their userspace. The community may, and frequently does, delete project- and community-unacceptable pages, and WP:Block those who don't heed the warnings.
Yes, objections to material should be raied first on the talk page. To my memory, this is almost always done in all but the most unambiguous cases. Where discussion is not fruitful, a seven day MfD has proven useful to find a resolution. 30 days of toothless RFC for a simple question of "appropriate"/"not appropriate" for eveything that is not speediable, would be silly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:BEANS, WP:CREEP and WP:NOTFORUM. MfD is already a big waste of time, being devoted to non-issues or dramafests. We really don't need an MfD every time someone posts something controversial on Jimbo's talkpage, say. Warden (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Indented !vote in light of change to proposal Monty845 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC) I could support a similar proposal, but I think it needs the be clear that MfDing parts of a page in userspace should only be used if BOLD removal and discussion with the user in question have failed to adequately resolve the issue. It shouldn't serve as an invitation to start MFDing ever part of a userspace page the nominator disagrees with. Monty84514:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with much of the sentiment of Monty and Warden. Before bringing an issue to MfD, you should (a) if the user is active, talk to him, or (b) boldly fix the problem by editing and advise the user. Come to MfD only if opposed. The range of cases that involve userpage content that is not speediable, but can't be fixed by editing, is very thin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
MFD is not a process for editing an article. It is a process for deleting an article (or not). If some page in userspace has impermissible content, then delete the page, not part of it. If it is in mainspace, then be bold and edit it. If it is in userspace and the user says all are welcome to edit it, then edit it. If the user says "I intend to post this insulting and impermissible userbox, image, text or whatever in this private article in my userspace, which would not be permitted in mainspace, and no one may change it," then he should realize that Wikipedia is not a hosting service for vile personal opinions or content, and the thing should be deleted. Edison (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - There are already sufficient mechanisms for the removal of inappropriate user pages. Ascribing some sort of partial-page censorship function to the bureaucratic backwater that is MfD would be a serious mistake, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this RfC is very misleading. As I pointed out above, we are already effectively debating partial sections of userpages in many user page MfDs. It is rare that an entire main user page will violate policy, and other than WP:UP#COPIES cases, it's often the case with subpages as well. If we delete the entire thing and allow recreation without the offending section (which we pretty much always do), the effect is exactly the same. Either this proposal doesn't really mean anything, or, if taken to an extreme, opposition to this proposal would effectively render all user pages immune from MfD entirely. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider this RfC misleading. Its purpose is to formalize the precedent of discussing whether a part of a user page can be discussed for removal at MfD. This was an issue at the MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag. If this proposal fails, then the MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag would have had only two possible results: "keep the page as is" or "delete the entire user page [even though there is only one problematic element]", rather than the nuanced ruling that "Consensus is that the offending portion of the page to be deleted (and obviously not re-added)". I don't think the opponents of this proposal intend this (and I disagree with such a result), but if this is the consensus of the community, then that will be how MfD operates in the future. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
OpposeWikipedia does not have firm rules and we do not need to codify everything in policy. It's also not practical - admins cannot enforce a community decision to delete part of a page. If there is valuable content, then copy it to another page before (or after) deletion by all means, but ultimately the page should be deleted as a whole or kept as a whole. Multiple deletion discussions for the same page is a waste of time. --Surturz (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose RfC, Medcab, and MedCom are the routes for disputes about article content. XfD is when the entire existence of an article is questioned. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. As has been pointed out, there are already forums for discussing a page's content. Extending MfD's scope opens a whole new can of worms. Although the proposal has good intentions, it makes the process more bureaucratic and creates another avenue for forum shopping.--SGCM(talk)01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. XfD is not a substitute for discussion or forcing editors to cleanup/expand an article. And the word "portion" is a very slippery slope. How are you going to define the word "portion"? Does removing 500 words count? How about 1% of the words? What if you're deleting a big table? I think your criteria is far too vague. OhanaUnitedTalk page03:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose on both counts (proposed text and addendum). XfD is not a place to discuss removal of content from pages. Also, editors should not "boldly" remove content from other editors' user spaces--they should first contact the other editor and gently inform them that some of the content on their page may be a violation. If the editor does not respond or they refuse, then you could go ahead and remove it yourself. If they revert the edit, you could try to remove it one more time. If they revert a second time, it might be a matter for AN/I or MfD (if you could justify deleting the entire page). —JmaJeremy✆✎22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
A case for "boldly" remove content from other editors' user spaces would be the removal of a personal slight against another from the userpage of a once-active but now years-inactive editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
RfC discussion
Question Has this been a big issue recently that we've not been able to manage in the normal fashion? Just curious as there seems to be only one incident recently. So I'm not sure I have an opinion one way or the other. 64.40.57.52 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This RfC is meant to formally clarify whether portions of a page in the userspace can be discussed at MfD. This is generally not a common occurrence, but it occurs frequently enough (per the examples I listed above) that a discussion about it is warranted. Precedent has been to permit this, but I wanted to see if the community agrees. Based on the current discussion, it appears the community does not, and a user's entire page will have to be deleted even if there is a single problematic element. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this RfC should be closed ASAP. It's misleading, and does not ask a meaningful question. If a portion of a userpage violates policy and we delete it, we always will allow the user to recreate it in a way that does not violate policy. So there really is no relevant question being posed here. Gigs (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not find the proposal misleading (feel free to reword it to make it more clear), but I also do not oppose closing this RfC early, if there doesn't seem to be a consensus to implement the proposal. Feel free to ask an uninvolved admin at AN or ANI to review the proposal. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a version of WP:BEFORE should be created for User Pages. Sort of a "Steps you should take with a user when you deem hir Userspace edits to be in violation of WP:UPNOT". Achowat (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
While this proposal is an excellent idea, discussion about this seems misplaced in this RfC and could cause it to go more off-track. Cunard (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That misstatement, “articles” versus “userpages”, explains to me why several experienced and sensible Wikipedians have dropped by and made unexpected statements in the Oppose section. They should be reassured that MfD doesn’t touch anything that appears in mainspace.
The AfD BEFORE section, ruling out AfD for requests for an editing-solution, is fine for AfD and probably fine for every namespace except userspace. In userspace, while anyone may edit anything and userspace is not OWNed, in the case of disagreement with the user (the one whose userspace it is) the user is usually presumed to be allowed to revert others’ edits without negotiation. Where there is a userspace-content dispute, and an obstinate user, MfD *is* receptive to looking at whether the page violates some part of WP:UP#NOT, or WP:BLP, etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, Flatscan, which explains why users have been misinterpreting the proposal, which clearly states that the proposal applies only to "portions of pages in the userspace". This error from the Signpost should be taken into consideration by the closing admin. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The previous post (03:15, 6 August 2012) confirms for me that the misleading advertsing (“Deleting portions of an article If edit warring is happening in regards to deletion of a section of an article should the discussion be brought to miscellany for deletion?”) of this RFC poisoned it. People are still reading this highly misleading information, then coming here and commenting misinformed. This RfC should be closed as poisoned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Even cunard who rebutted my argument that this RfC is misleading admits that opposition to this proposal would lead to consequences that the opposition probably aren't expecting. I think this RfC is hopelessly muddled and should be ignored for any precedent purposes. Gigs (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New users creating articles about themselves in userspace
Do we really need to stomp down instantly on newbies creating articles about themselves in their user space? I think we should let them do it. At the very least they will learn how to use wiki markup and format articles. If we are lucky, they will wikilink a few real articles and start making constructive edits in main space. If, however, they are only here to promote themselves or their business, then we can wait three or six months, delete the page as per WP:FAKEARTICLE and if necessary block the user.
In short, which is more beneficial to the project:
Nine self-aggrandising user accounts and a new, useful, editor; or
What's most helpful is the User who would send a User: namespace page to MFD per WP:NOTMYSPACE talking and trying to engage the user and explain WP:UPNOT and then, if unresponsive, going to MFD. Achowat (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You have a valid point about the possibility of biting newbies and scaring them from the project. However, the problem is that our current guidelines encourage new users to contribute content via the userspace, but our userspace guidelines forbid the inclusion of promotional articles. The likeliest articles that a new user creates are promotional ones, the ones most likely to be nominated for MfD. The solution is that WP:FAKEARTICLE needs to be modified. WP:FAKEARTICLE needs a sentence stipulating that articles created by new users in the userspace have a specific time limit, two or three months, before the content is subject to WP:NOT policy. Additionally, articles by new users in the userspace must be labeled as drafts, and should be moved into the AfC space if the author agrees to it.--SGCM(talk)18:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
But why not just add an ugly template or something to the top of the userpage saying that it isn't an encyclopedia article? I would assert it would take a few months to decide that the newbie is not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. After, say, three months, if the user hasn't contributed anything except the one promotional article, it can be speedied under WP:CSD#G11.
I think many new users will be young and used to other websites where the first thing you do after account creation is "fill in your profile". Making their "profile" look like an encyclopedia article would seem a natural thing to do for a newbie (since they don't know our rules). --Surturz (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
These are good points, although it is hard to monitor pages that may need attention after three months. First step might be to create (if not already available somewhere) a friendly essay outlining the issue. A new template (to be posted on the user page) could point to that essay, and it might include a tracking category. If that's done, let's not stick to many officious blue links in the essay or the template. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Although a template is an interesting proposal, that's not going to prevent Wikipedians from nominating promotional userpages by newbies for deletion. Unless something is written down, as a guideline, policy, essay, or whatever, the practice is likely to continue. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but unless something is established by the community as a convention, things won't change. Johnuniq's suggestion of an essay may work.--SGCM(talk)04:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That's good, and I'm watching the new essay, but what I meant was an essay directed towards the new user, that is, something with precise guidance near the top, and which does not contain a flurry of links. I'll try to think about what might be done. My first thoughts are that we don't want the hundreds of fake articles currently dumped on user pages to instead be dumped on user subpages (sandboxes). Perhaps encourage them to leave the contribution where it is on their user page (if writing about themselves), or to use AfC (if writing about some other topic). The essay just needs to clearly state (in polite terms) that fake articles will be deleted in due course, and if they want it kept they should do X. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think yet another behavioural guideline page to read is the last thing a newbie needs. I think an essay on how MfD voters should treat newbies is far more useful. We should be treating newbies like seeds to be nurtured, rather than saplings to be culled. --Surturz (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
My reasoning was that this whole discussion is an attempt to not BITE new users, in the hope that some of them will go on to become useful editors. It is not possible to take the time to explain individually why their page will (probably) be deleted, so a friendly essay with a minimum of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo might be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a serious problem with the idea that brand new promotion and spam is somehow not promotion or spam. Besides, I can't think of any time a new user whose page has been MFDd and that user participates in the MFD that the issues weren't explained to hir in a welcoming, gentile way. The problem is that these people create this promo page, first in Article space (which is speedied), then move the content to User space, and then disappear forever. I don't think we need to worry about what they're here for. Their actions demonstrate that. Achowat (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur that promotional articles in userspace sandboxes are usually just that, spam. But I think that an article by a newcomer should be given a chance at AfC. If it's rejected there, then it gets deleted. It may be an extra bureaucratic step, but a necessary one for users who don't know our policies and need extra time to familiarize themselves with our guidelines on notability and reliable sources.--SGCM(talk)00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:STALEDRAFT link to the same UP subsection. As a result, I don't see much difference between the two. In fact, the actual text where they link says nothing about fake, so any MfD discussion about the page being fake and using the FAKEARTICLE shortcut would seem to carry little weight. (Per the comments in the above discussion, we may want to move the WP:FAKEARTICLE shortcut to where WP:UP#PROMO is located.) When a new editor creates a user page about himself on their user page that looks like an article, it usually has at least some aspect that will allow them to better participate in the community. However, it often goes well beyond that to where the amount of personal information provided on the user page doesn't match their level of contribution to the project. Deleting the page without talking to the new user raises WP:BITE issues, particularly when the page is nominated five days or so from when the new editor creates their account. I would not object to anyone who moves a new user page that looks like a detailed article about that user to a subuser page, leaves a short summary of personal info on the user page, and then posts a comment on that user's talk page about the steps the page moving editor took. If the new editor objects, move everything back and list at MfD. If a new user creates an article about themselves in userspace to where it is obvious that it doesn't belong, the page should be moved to a sub user page, not the user page if it is going to be moved at all. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I created the fakearticle shortcut. The "fake" in fakearticle refers to the fact that user pages can look exactly like actual articles, can rank highly in Google results, and can actually attract random improvements from visitors. So it does refer to drafts, but a specific kind of draft, one intended to be a content fork or hosting of content that is not acceptable in main space in a way that presents itself as if it were a main space article. Not every visitor will notice the different color background or the URL differences between userspace articles and real articles. So the specific way that these articles damage the encyclopedia is by tricking uninitiated visitors into believe they are article content. It doesn't matter if the content is promotional, clearly non-notable, or just vanity. A big disclaimer at the top that it isn't really an article but rather a working draft would negate this effect, and I think there is a template that can be used for that. Even with a disclaimer, user space content might run afoul of other parts of the policy, but the fake article bit in particular refers to likelihood of confusion with mainspace content. Gigs (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh and for the history of STALEDRAFT and why it lands in the same place as FAKEARTICLE, this RfD might help one understand the thought process behind why I created that one as well. Gigs (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: Non-bitey template
I like the genuine thoughtfulness of all parties above. Perhaps the solution we're all working towards is a template to go on the user's talk page that gently but firmly explains things, without too much confusing WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
In this case I think you could just nominate all of them in one nomination. The content and concerns are identical for all the pages, they don't need to be considered individually. Hut 8.521:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, these are all copyvio as no attribution, so I can just delete them. If they weren't abandoned and that by an editor who never actually edited I'd ask the editor for attribution and to work on them, but these are pretty routine housekeeping deletions. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
It's subjective. The general rule is "Userspace can't be used only to prevent deletion". Given that the user hasn't edited anything unrelated to that page, really ever, I think it'd have a good chance of being deleted if listed at MFD. Achowat (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
For the Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development, I start with three months and then that up or down depending on whether there are other things to take into account. Troubled content, short-term hosting becomes less than three months. Long term editor active in producing content, short-term hosting becomes longer than three months. If the creator has not been active at all since the AfD, short-term hosting may become less than three months depending on whether the editor is a productive contributor. User:Yfever contributed in a narrow area.[4] The page staledraft date is 18 August 2012. I'd wait until at least November 1 before listing at MfD to better ensure of getting a deletion consensus. To answer your questions, yes the user page has to go through formal MfD. I don't think there would be a consensus for a specific time guidance to be added STALEDRAFT. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiProjects and their subpages
The section "WikiProjects and their subpages" provides guidance on deleting inactive WikiProject pages, but does not provide any guidance whatever on deleting a very active WikiProject subpage. This is in contrast with the "Policies, guidelines and process pages" guidance, which says "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
or redirecting it somewhere." However, it is clear that a Miscellany for deletion is being used to propose deletion of an active WikiProject subpage, and deletion of that active subpage will be a change of Wikipedia policy.
If a MfD is to be used for a policy change, the guidance section should say so. Right now it does not authorize its use on a WikiProject subpage for a policy change, only for inactivity. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)? In addition to deleting pages, MfD can terminate projects (e.g., stop editors from collectivly engaging in an activity). I don't recall seeing a micromanaging effort at MfD to terminate an aspect of a WikiProject, but the miscellany part of "Miscellany for deletion" is construed broadly. If you can clearly articulate what you want to happen in through a MfD request, then the MfD request can result in the requested outcome. The trouble with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination) is that it appears to only request deletion of the page. Big deal. The text of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list constantly changes and it would be easy enough to get around WP:G4 by creating a not sufficiently identical and improved version of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list if MfD deleted that page. The nominator probably wanted to terminate a particular activity. However, the MfD nom did not clearly articulate what subproject he/she wanted MfD to terminate. Without that, you can't get a valid dicusssion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Change authorization to allow for deletion for misuse: I see no reason why WikiProjects shouldn't get a pass to having a misused page or template being deleted at MfD. I, for one, do not believe WikiProjects are entitled to do whatever they want pbp19:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleting my past sockpuppet history
I returned in January after being blocked for nearly 5 years, applying for an unblock so long as I assume good faith. I was considering deleting my sockpuppet categories and their user pages because I no longer remember their passwords and have no intent to reuse those accounts.
Very good idea, thank you. I think it should be used for non-problematic content that is not close to being useful. Would it be a good idea to recommend incubation of potentially useful material not quite ready for mainspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I would not recommend incubation. The incubator project has a lack of maintainers currently, and the work that has been moved out of incubation is still of generally poor quality. Basically, I think the incubator is a failed experiment.
I would recommend moving new article drafts into the articles for creation space, and letting the user know how AfC works. AfC seems to have active maintainers, and is generally a better way to get new articles developed with feedback from experienced users. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Userspace articles
I'm seeing a lot of user space articles being nominated for deletion. (Every article on Wikipedia is a "draft" so that word is useless for this discussion.) See, for example, the many nominations noted at User talk:ChildofMidnight.
I have a concern.
Some of these articles were moved from mainspace to userspace in good faith. And many have more editors than merely the user in question.
This is problematic for several reasons. Housekeeping. Article page logs where other editors may find them. And also, it violates the spirit of consensus can change, because now these articles cannot be found when looked for in articlespace for possible undeletion.
And further, what's to stop someone from boldly userfying a page, then nominating it for deletion as in their userspace?
So with this in mind, I would like to see if we can find a consensus that such articles be moved back to articlespace before deletion.
And part of me suggests that these drafts should be nominated at AfD rather than mfd. (Since Afd stands for "articles for deletion", not "pages in the main namespace for deletion".)
You make some good points but I don't think that we need to debate them at AfD, and where the userpage and the "owning" user is inactive for 1+ years, I think we just should speedy blank them (perhaps using my new {{Inactive userpage blanked}} template! :-). Any content inside these userfied articles would need to be verifiable for undeletion to be successful - which means that any content in these article can be re-created from the source refs. If the userspace owner is still active, then they will know where the page is to undelete. If the userspace owner is inactive (like ChildOfMidnight) then the new editor (or group of editors) trying to re-create the article will probably be quite happy to start from scratch. --Surturz (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
While that is assuredly an option, we need a consensus, so that we can also deal with any others which need moving (or history merging) per the above. Plus your blanking plan still leaves them "lost in userspace" : ) - jc3707:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sigh.
Read WP:STALEDRAFT. It's only linked to from every single one of these nominations. it explains why and when it may be appropriate to MfD a userspace draft.
Rouge admins aside, users cannot "boldly userfy" articles without leaving mainspace redirects behind, and even admins are going to have to explain a move in the page log. Editors are typically diligent enough to take the five required seconds to check the page history before commenting at MfD.
Most of these have already been at AfD. In the (rare in my experience) event of an article having significantly improved from the version that was deleted in the time between the AfD and the MfD, "promote back to mainspace and see if it sticks" is an acceptable and non-uncommon outcome of the MfD.
And tying into all of that, CoM was a notorious early adopter of the now common inclusionist disruption tactic of getting friendly or overly-trusting admins to userfy copies of pretty much any deleted content and then leaving it to rot indefinitely in userspace simply to "win" a battle in that interminable content war. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Further Ikip sub-pages. When he moved from the drama of AfD to the drama of political articles and subsequently ended up getting blocked into submission, there was never any chance of these being worked on further. The path of least drama would to fall back to the original AfD result and procedurally delete them.
What the problem amounts to is that we need more participation in mfd; the only xfd process usually getting significant discussion is afd, Perhaps we need a few more improvement-minded people checking MfD. But moving all stale draft discussion to afd would probably complicate and delay what is already a relatively over-burdened process; I agree with Thumperward that most such pages nominated for deletion should be and will be deleted regardless of the process, unless the editor is around and makes a reasonable promise to work on them. Perhaps we need a way of moving reasonably challenged or complicated discussions to afd.
I am aware of multiple ways for a person to make use of the move function in nonconstructive ways & there are undoubtedly a good number of haven't thought of. I'm not listing all of them here, per WP:BEANS, but for those being significantly mis-used, we will have to take measures. One which has been frequently asked for is having moves from user space to main space appear in New Pages; another is having pages moved from WP AfC talk space appear there. DGGNYPL (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I support merging several of the other XfDs into MfD. It would concentrate the volunteer effort and simplify the maze of bureaucracy that someone has to navigate when nominating a thing for deletion. Gigs (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
To Jc37: We have more lax standards here than AfD. We don't usually consider notability on a userspace draft, unless it's so clearly non-notable that it has no chance in hell of making it in mainspace. Sending user drafts to AfD would subject them to much more harsh standards. Bold userfication should only be considered in relatively uncontroversial cases in the first place, since it amounts to soft deletion. A bold userfication that we give 6 months in userspace for someone to contest is still far more generous than a 7-day PROD. I believe our current arrangement is generally very generous on user drafts. Gigs (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the point of the post is being misunderstood. My concern is that the edit history will reside in user space on an article which that individual user was not the sole editor of. As text is apparently re-usable, deletion in this way, prevents someone in the future from having any idea that this article ever existed, and so if even part of the article is salvageable, how will it be found to be used? No deletion log in article space. And this not getting into issues of copy/paste moves/merges/splits, etc.
I did misunderstand you. I agree there are some housekeeping/history problems with pre-emptive userfication. The thing is, articles with significant multiple-author histories are almost never userfied prior to deletion. So I would challenge your assumption that this is common practice. Gigs (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
