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. Userfying makes no sense (it is already a userspace draft), unless Unscintillating is actually requesting a move to their userspace (which doesn't seem to be case); if that's their wish, they can request restoration to their userspace to me or WP:REFUND. Incubating (which is to say: moving to Draftspace, since that replaced the deprecated Incubator) is a possible outcome for userspace drafts going through MfD, however there is no rationale presented as to why this draft meets any incubation criteria. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 00:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

On October 13th, this has been userfied to User:Unscintillating/Mason Brown on request. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown

User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft. While the Kentucky Secretary of State would be notable, I think it's a copyright violation from this page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Incubate or userfy Incubate Userfy  I couldn't confirm the copypaste.  Yes, I see the text in the first two sentences, but "xxx was born on xxx in xxx" and "His parents were xxx" are not original thought.  I tried to run two duplicate detectors, but they could not "see" the text in the source.  If there are no objections, I request userfication. I request userfication.  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Withdrawing request for userfication, due to objections.  Changing !vote to incubate.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The withdrawing of my request for userfication has not led to the building of consensus, so I am restoring the request for userfication so that the closing admin has more options.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Ignore the copyright comment, it's different enough. Userify to who? This is already in userspace but the user hasn't edited other than pasting this in October 2009. Are you willing to adopt it? If so, I have no objection to closing this if an active user moves it forward. I have a few articles I've taken on and a few I've just revised and moved to articlespace but rather than keeping it here, I think it's better to delete this version and let someone else create it from scratch if they want. We could list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts#Articles but all that's doing is letting these remain stale even longer. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

When I said "I request userfication", I did not mean "incubate", "move to Abandoned drafts", or "userfy on request".  As for being a "stale" draft, there is WP:No deadline.  Thanks for clearing the copyright concern.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not about a deadline, it's about not being a free webhost. There's over 44k drafts at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard plus others but those don't fall under G13 to me and I'd guess maybe that's a few thousand actual articles down the line. If we don't get rid of some of them, we'll never be able to focus on the ones who are ready. What do you propose, it be kept as is? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Are you ok with incubation?  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Can you be more specific? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting moving to Draft space under the Abandoned Drafts project? On a practical level, that would be moving it from Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from November 2009 to its parent at Category:Userspace drafts from October 2009 which doesn't really change anything. To clarify, if you are willing to adopt it, I can live with moving the article to User:Unscintillating/Mason_Brown or whatever if you take on the onus to work on it but I think it's been here long enough. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

No, I've already been specific.  I am not suggesting anything.  If you need more information regarding incubation, such is available at WP:Deletion policy and WP:Drafts.  I have no objection if you want to make a proposal to handle this with abandoned drafts.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, you said it not me and not you're not being specific. You started with 'useify' which made little sense and now you're with 'incubate' which again makes little sense without some context. If you don't want to explain to me what you have in mind, that's fine but following those policies again I don't see the point in moving this to drafts since it's then an article in draftspace that hasn't been edited for years as opposed to an article in userspace that hasn't been edited for years. I'd propose it for deletion under that basis then. I assume that there is some purpose you have in mind for the suggestion but that requires some idea of what exactly you are suggesting or insinuating or offering or whatever verb you want to use. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

A source that discusses the context here is WP:5P.  Telling me twice that I'm suggesting something after I stated that I was not suggesting anything doesn't seem to me to build consensus.  Telling me that I've not been specific after I've told you that I have been specific doesn't seem to me to build consensus.  The word "insinuate" according to Merriam Webster means, "to say (something, especially something bad or insulting) in an indirect way.", and is a puzzle to interpret as constructive.  I conclude that this discussion is not building consensus.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply

What do you actually want to do here? You first say "userify" which doesn't make sense to me because it's already in userspace. You then say "incubate" which I assume means move it to draftspace as that's what I understand it to mean and I tell you I don't think that solves it any further. I assume that when you're voting to incubate the article, that you are suggesting that we incubate the article. Citing the Five pillars isn't helpful at all since we aren't even discussing something that's a part of the encyclopedia at the moment (unless I am misunderstanding you). If you want consensus, making votes and then refusing to explain them by saying those aren't your suggestions at all isn't helpful. Are you just saying keep it as is? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. Also, a !vote of Userfy doesn't make much sense, since this is already in userspace. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Are you ok with incubation?  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  No. That doesn't fix any of the problems with it. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 03:39, 8 October 2014 (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.