Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2012 in Jordan

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 Multiple, see below. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note All deleted pages are deleted without prejudice for recreation at anytime, provided there will be any content. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:2012 in Jordan

Draft:2012 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

 Kept as there is at least a piece of content.

Draft:2011 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

 Move to main Already moved to mainspace, kept in mainspace

Draft:2009 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

N Deleted - There is no factual content, nothing to keep

Draft:2008 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

N Deleted - There is no factual content, nothing to keep

Draft:2007 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

N Deleted - There is no factual content, nothing to keep

Draft:1988 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

N Deleted - There is no factual content, nothing to keep

Draft:1980 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

N Deleted - There is no factual content, nothing to keep

I'm not sure what should be done with these. These were all created in late 2014/early 2015, all moved to draftspace in early February 2015 and have basically been untouched since then. They aren't a part of AFC so they'll never fall under G13 or be reviewed that way. They could be kept here in draftspace but no one has seen them in close to a year. Does someone want to adopt it? Should they just be kept and examined in another year or so? [Note that 2010 in Jordan exists already and the other empty pages have been deleted under A3.] Ricky81682 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I choose not to vote but I've been busy so I don't think I can work on them for now. Deleting them seems to be the best option as if I feel like adding events to those pages I could just create the page. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, we could just move them to mainspace. It's not like they aren't going to be created eventually. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete all, would fail CSD:A3 if they were articles and they have been left untouched for so long that there is no likelihood anything will be added. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep all They have genuine potential for an article. Someone should just add one or two events each and move them to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep all Can be easily moved to mainspace after just minor content additions. This is a very good use of draft namespace. 103.6.159.84 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• These are good draft ideas. Encourage User:Jackninja5 to userfy them and to steer clear of Draftspace and WP:AfC. These processes exist only to funnel incompetent article writing into a slow path to auto-deletion, with a very very small chance that someone will discover an idea and rescue it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Mixed vote: Keep 2011 in Jordan as a draft (and swat away the "Stale" argument proposer). Delete the rest. 2011 is the best candidate for keeping because there's 2 events in it. I would like to see some more content before it got promoted to mainspace. The rest are procedural creations that don't have any events listed in them and only serve as a categorization index that is also serviced by Categories. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Hasteur's idea. Most of them are essentially useless, but 2011 has become a decent, although short, article. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Delete all, perStifle 's points. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep all – Per WP:PRESERVE and the rationale provided above by DGG. For example, 2011 in Jordan was already moved to main namespace (by another user). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment 2011 is already in mainspace, though it still has a MfD on it. . The general idea is when we have a series like this, and each of them has obvious potential for contents, it is helpful for everyone who might want to add material if the skeleton is ready. It's not as if it is questionable that there is content available. There is no actual reason to remove then --it saves no space, it saves no time, it confuses nobody. In fact, it is just the opposite: even holding this MfD is harmful to Wikipedia, for we could all be doing something constructive, and removing them would be much more harmful because someone will then have to go through the work of reconstructing them. RickyB1682,and Stifle, what actual benefit do you see in removing them? DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas. That's why I asked and I added to the 2011 one. I look at this also like WP:REDLINKS policy: having seen the number of people who significantly care about their article creation counts, (it's minor but something that does come up) there's a part of me that suggests that pages like this be deleted in favor of either recreation by someone with actual interest in the subject later. I see more people interested in creating new articles when there's nothing there than people interested in working on something in draftspace when it's already started. It's dumb but people do care about the creation credit and who gets the DYK award and the like and to me, skeletons don't help that cause. As I said in the nomination, this is somewhat unusual in that I could probably mass create thousands of these pages in draftspace if there's support for that (almost every country times almost every year) but is that good or bad depends on how you view the equivalent of redlinks applied here. I note that we currently have someone who created the equivalent of these for the names of all state court judges and I've already seen some drama with a person later creating an actual legitimate article in mainspace and these skeleton drafts being "history merged" in to get the creation credit. To me, that's almost like domain name hoarding in a sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2016 (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.