Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/List of auteurs (2nd nomination)

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: histmerged with List of film auteurs. (non-admin closure) VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/List of auteurs[edit]

This page is the oldest page tagged as a userspace draft. It remains as a copy of a deleted article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_auteurs and the arguments for deletion there still apply. Userspace is not an indefinate hosting space for deleted pages. User is active and notified of this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/List of auteurs closed as keep, and there seems to be no new argument for deletion, we should keep. But lets encourage Valoem to put some more work into making this acceptable, ie make it non-subjective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That MfD was a year ago now. We give Drafts 6 months usually. I don't think the page can be made non-subjective, or at least no one has managed to do it in 13 years. Legacypac (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has asked me to withdraw - I've requested they make their case here (creates a centralized location for next trip to MfD for the page) and said I'll consider it. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - stale as fuck, barely touched since being imported to userspace in 2014. Now redundant to List of film auteurs anyway so there's pretty much zero reason to keep it around. (disclosure: I took it to MfD last time, which actually closed as no consensus, not a straight-up keep). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone point me to where it says we delete pages in userspace after 6 months? My impression is that only applies to draftspace and userspace pages that have gone through AfC. ~~Otherwise obviously keep.~~ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been more clear. My comment was comparing how we deal with all Drafts and AfC submissions (ie WP:G13 after 6 months unimproved) in contrast to how this page is the single oldest (tagged) page in user space Category:Monthly_clean-up_category_(Userspace_drafts)_counter There is no specific deadline in userspace but at some point this is a WP:NOTAWEBHOST issue and runs against the idea we don't keep a shadow encyclopdia of pages deleted through deletion processes. So ya... keep for how long exactly? Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is on WP:User pages under WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content". Also, at the end of the third paragraph: "Pages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted by tagging with {{db-g4}}. Less blatant cases are routinely deleted at WP:MfD." In this case, as the userfied content has been completely unimproved since 2014, there is clearly no active attempt to address the reasons for deletion and it should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Given Valoem has been active since this nomination and has not shown an interest in keeping it, I'm not interested to do so either. And given that this was a copy of a deleted article which was userfied but not really improved, it's not the sort of userspace draft I care to argue for on principle alone. Keep struck; abstaining. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:STALE and WP:FAKEARTICLE; WP:CFORK is relevant too since List of film auteurs exists. -Apocheir (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and redundant to List of film auteurs. No significant edits since 2014, no need to keep indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is among the strongest cases for WP:PRESERVE, this list was made in a time when there was more interest in auteur directors. The historic editors which worked on the page are no longer active. Many of this directors have sources which state them as auteurs and is a vastly more complete list which needs to be sourced. At a minimum the history retained can be merged into List of film auteurs. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about redirecting it at the mainspace page? History preserved, no more fake article issues, out of the maintenance lists. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a fake article? But yes that would be fine merging history with the mainspace article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAKEARTICLE pages that look like articles in userspace I'll request a history merge. Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot imagine deleting a page in userspace of an active and experienced editor because they have not yet gotten around to it. There are user space pages appropriate for deletion, but this is not once of them. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close Historymerge completed and the draft therefore no longer exists Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2018 (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.