Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/blpsource

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, with no prejudice for undeletion should anyone need to check the list. As is the list is potentially misleading as possibly some, maybe many, of the listed articles are fixed by now, and it is not maintained in any way. - Nabla (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betacommand/blpsource[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT - since 2010 Dweller (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whatever purpose it served at the time has long ceased to be useful. MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:STALEDRAFT applies to pages that look like articles. This most emphatically is not a draft article. Deleting it because you don't like it and can't discern its purpose is a non-starter too. That's just not a reason to delete it. Based on a review of the articles listed in this processing page, it is a processing page for BLPs lacking sources to support them. Rather than delete this page, people should be going through it to process out the pages that have been lacking citations for a long time. Jack Ankerson and Deborah Andollo for example, which have been tagged that way for five years. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it **was**, it would seem, a processing page for BLPs lacking sources to support them, but this page is five years old, and consequently, many of the pages listed are now adequately sourced (many others are deleted). Around the time this page was created, there was a huge push to get BLPs sourced or deleted. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those looking for such articles would, of course, now just click here. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's a stale draft or not, banned users don't need user subpages. If someone wants to use it, let them use it. If nobody wants to use it, delete it. --B (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason for deletion presented. This page isn't an article, so WP:STALEDRAFT doesn't apply, the fact that the user is banned doesn't mean all their subpages have to be deleted and even if there is no conceivable use for the page in the future that still isn't a reason to delete it - we keep plenty of historical pages around, even outside userspace. Hut 8.5 20:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No rationale for inclusion, so it fails WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You realise this is not an article, right? Hut 8.5 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By applying WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:NLIST strictly to articles only would mean that we could never clean up old and redundant pages. IMO, the principles from these guidelines do apply, regardless if it is a article or not. Anyway, User:Dweller has already clearly described above that this page is redundant and obsolete now. Time to clean it up, this is not Wayback Machine. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have STALEDRAFT is because content on Wikipedia that looks like an article may mislead the reader into thinking it is actually an article, such pages aren't being maintained or subjected to our content standards, and the potential harm that comes from this outweighs the benefits if the page isn't being actively worked on. This rationale simply does not apply to any page that does not look like an article.
NLIST just does not apply outside mainspace, as you can see from the wording of the page, and applying it to userspace would make no sense whatsoever. Want to keep a list of articles in your userspace that you're thinking of working on? You can't - unless you can find a reliable source that confirms you're thinking of working on it. Ridiculous.
We only delete pages here if someone can point to an identifiable reason why keeping pages like that around would cause actual harm. Nobody has done that here. "It's old" is not a valid reason - we have thousands of them. Hut 8.5 20:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly because it's really old and unedited and far better covered by Category:BLP articles lacking sources, i.e redundant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dweller, "STALEDRAFT" is not per se a reason for deletion. However, the page could be a problem due to some wider unmentioned context, Betacommand is a heavy and complicated story, and you are not known for random actions. Inclined to support deletion, abut a better reason would be appreciated. I suggest converting to a soft redirect to Category:BLP articles lacking sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete without prejudice against Betacommand asking for it to be restored should he become un-banned and un-blocked, contingent on him not being under any restrictions that would make it a bad idea for the page to be re-created. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (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.