Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RilusMaximus/City of Sacramento
- 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. — xaosflux Talk 12:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Stale draft redundant to existing articles. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank as a proper userspace test, but a tentatively productive Wikipedian. Not a good new article topic, per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to be rude. Nothing lost with this copy. 166.170.45.134 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Editor has not edited since 2012. Blanking only leave the page to be vandalized in the future. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is no reason to think this page is any more likely to be vandalized as any other. And if there were, there are better answers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The topic is fine. Blanking or blanking with template:inactive userpage blanked would mislead the editor into thinking that this page is actually appropriate. If the editor was actively (and say aggressively) working on this page rather than say Government of Sacramento, California which is the appropriate page, they would be directed to go edit the mainspace version and this would likely be deleted. It seems counter-intuitive that we do the opposite because the editor isn't actively here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- It seems counter-intuitive that we do the opposite because the editor isn't actively here. That is an extremely important point. Launching this large offensive against traditional leeway in userspace, but only doing it where the user in question isn't here to explain, is a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- What is intuitive about blanking a page to direct an editor to the history to undo the blanking when if the editor was actively editing the page, we could then take the page to MFD and delete it because it already exists here? I'm all about leeway but again, if the editor was actively here, there a little leeway about working on their own version of something that already exists but if they insisted upon doing that, it would be deleted and the editor would be asked to actually work on the encyclopedia which is the point here. If this page never came to MFD and the editor returned tomorrow and started again work on this and someone then took it to MFD, it would be deleted and they would be directed to the mainspace version. So why mislead editors in the name of "not aliening or not insulting or not being rude" that because they weren't here when the page was created, they'd shoudn't just be told to go work there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- If that was genuinely your concern, the polite and appropriate thing to do would be to write them a note on their talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did put a note on their talkpage with a link to this discussion so that in the unlikely event they come looking for their draft that dups the real article they will know why it was deleted. [1] Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- If that was genuinely your concern, the polite and appropriate thing to do would be to write them a note on their talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- What is intuitive about blanking a page to direct an editor to the history to undo the blanking when if the editor was actively editing the page, we could then take the page to MFD and delete it because it already exists here? I'm all about leeway but again, if the editor was actively here, there a little leeway about working on their own version of something that already exists but if they insisted upon doing that, it would be deleted and the editor would be asked to actually work on the encyclopedia which is the point here. If this page never came to MFD and the editor returned tomorrow and started again work on this and someone then took it to MFD, it would be deleted and they would be directed to the mainspace version. So why mislead editors in the name of "not aliening or not insulting or not being rude" that because they weren't here when the page was created, they'd shoudn't just be told to go work there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a (near) duplicate topic of Government of Sacramento, California. Editor (doubtful if (s)he ever comes back) should be encourage to edit mainspace article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:30, 8 April 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.