Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BeanieFan11/Bill Collins (American football player)

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 keep. Nominator withdrew and no one has recommended anything other than keeping. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BeanieFan11/Bill Collins (American football player)[edit]

The page has undergone an AfD in March 2023, and was draftified at the request of BeanieFan11, who said, I know I can find SIGCOV (I'm not sure the two above are enough), its just going to take some time. In May, BeanieFan11 moved the page to their own userspace for the stated reason of evading the G13 automatic deletion after six months. During the entire 11 months since the AfD, the page saw zero edits other than removing the {{AfC submission}} tag, therefore still fails NBIO as it did during the AfD.

This seems to be a pattern with BeanieFan11. According to their own count, they have five such pages in their userspace, either directly userfied as the outcome of an AfD, or draftified, and then userfied by BeanieFan11 to evade G13. In all cases, no work was done on the article since draftification/userfication. This is in addition to well over 100 other user subpages of various nature.

I'm sure BeanieFan11 had genuinely intended to work on the article when they asked for draftification. But their lack of action, along with their quote of the "WP:NODEADLINE" essay when the subject came up, suggests they consider their userspace a permanent sanctuary for articles they believe were incorrectly removed from main namespace.

Since the stated reason for moving from draft to userspace and removing the {{AfC submission}} tag was to evade G13, I believe the page still qualifies for Speedy deletion under G13. However, I am interested in additional views. Pinging @Randykitty: @Cbl62: @ActivelyDisinterested: @Alvaldi: and @Hey man im josh: who were involved with the original AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do still intend on eventually getting to this as I said; I need to get in contact with some people at the Professional Football Researchers Association and have a few other things I need to do at PFRA before I can get to this (the shutting down of one of the primary football resources, Pro Football Archives, has complicated things as well – been in contact with the owner of the site). I've been quite busy in recent times which has made it difficult for me to get to this (as well as with Green / Young), but I intend on doing it eventually. I still do believe in WP:NODEADLINE; I don't see the harm in keeping this. As for removing the AFC tag, that was something suggested to me by admin User:Liz. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia has no dead lines and Beanie is a prolific content creator. If they think they can salvage the article I want to give them a chance to do so. It's absolutely unfair to say there's a pattern when it's only 5, that many user space drafts is nothing. Do you intend to find other drafts from other users to also nominate? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to refresh your memory: WP:G13 has a clearly stated six-month deadline for drafts and AFC-tagged user pages. Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But G13 only applies if the user-space draft is either empty or AFC-tagged. Those don't seem to apply. Am I missing something?? Cbl62 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have WP:G13 is to ensure we don't end up with abandoned drafts. But if all you need to get around G13 is to userfy and remove the AFC tag, we've basically ending up with an abandoned draft that doesn't technically qualify under G13, which is what we have MfD for. I didn't delete or tag the page under G13, but brought it here, so we can decide if after 11 months with zero edits, it's still a work-in-progress "draft", or just part of a growing collection of userspace articles. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: I'm well aware of G13, I'm one of the 3 admins who handle most of them. As you said, it's about abandoned drafts, which this is not. Please try to use a valid deletion rational next time or reach out to the user directly to see if said draft is actually abandoned. It would save everybody some time. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to clarify further, G13 does not give a deadline. It simply refers to 6 months of no edits. A user may edit a draft in any minor way to extend the time for years if they want to, and that does happen frequently. It's why we have FireflyBot to notify people a month ahead of the 6 month point. Additionally, this "deadline" you referenced isn't even what you're implying. There's no reason they couldn't have gone to WP:REFUND had the page been unedited in draft space for 6 months. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question. As I understand it, BeanieFan moved this to his own user space to incubate the article until he has time to work on it. Is there a rule prescribing a time limit on how long a draft can remain in one's own user space? What about the following quote from WP:USERPAGE? User space drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone. Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result of that AfD was to draftify the page, which has a six-month deadline. The move from a temporary draft to an indefinite user page was never discussed or agreed to. I think calling it a "user space draft" at that point is disingenuous, seeing as there is clearly no effort being made to improve it. Owen× ☎ 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: Beanie was not given 6 months to complete the work, the 6 months mentioned in G13 is for unedited drafts. A user could make any type of minor edit to extend the timeline indefinitely if they wanted to, but instead, Beanie chose to userfy it. This is a perfectly acceptable alternative to deletion. Had they let it get deleted they could have easily gone to WP:REFUND and requested that it be restored. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You understand it correctly, user space drafts may exist indefinitely. G13 applies to items in draft space or with the AfC template applied. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's few compelling reason to delete pages in userspace, and I don't see there's a reason to do so here. BeanieFan11 isn't keeping a collection of pseufo-articles in userspace, just some things they are working on. If they still believe they can salvage the article I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note I agreed with draftifying in the AfD, and I see nothing wrong with BF11 moving it to userspace.
G13 may apply to AFC-tagged drafts in userspace, but this is not an AFC-tagged draft (and I don't see anything wrong with BF11 removing the AFC tag from a page in their userspace). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proper use of userspace. This is not a BLP. There are no copyrights issues. I see no other sensitivities associated with this person. There are no time limits. (G13 time limit is because it had to deal with tens of thousands of drafts without custodians). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, if you think you can improve an article and don't want it deleted G13, move it to userspace. That's ... what we want people to do. It won't bother anybody who isn't going out of their way to dig through other people's userspace pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above and WP:USERPAGE ("User space drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone."). Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. I got an answer to my question, and see no point in wasting more of people's time. Any editor may close this now. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 10 February 2024 (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.