- 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Owen spencer/generic law firm
Userspace attempt to create a template for London law firm articles. Not used and not an appropriate user of usespace. Ricky81682 ( talk) 12:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm not really sure why this is an inappropriate use of userspace.Weak support: WP:UP specifically states that editors may keep drafts in their userspace. Furthermore, WP:ATD states that "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Even if this did qualify for deletion, WP:UP#DELETE states that"[e]xcept for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion"
. Pages like this help users create new articles based on a common content structure, which in turn helps us build a bigger, better encyclopedia. Shouldn't we encourage, rather than discourage content creation? If an article fails to meet GNG or violates policy in some way, we can deal with that on a case-by-case basis. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's still a
WP:WEBHOST and
WP:UP#COPIES issue then. It hasn't been edited since 2009 with the user inactive since 2011. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- After re-reading
WP:UP#COPIES, I saw the language that states
"[o]ld copies of mainspace articles should be deleted if unused"
. If it is true that this material is "unused," then it looks like Wikipedia policy calls for its deletion. I have therefore struck my previous vote. However, there are two reasons why my support is weak in this case: (1) Although this may have the look and feel of a mainspace article, there is no identifiable content to relate this page to any person or organization -- there is likely to be little-to-no confusion about this being a real article about a specific law firm. (2) I think Wikipedia should allow users to keep "fill in the blank" pages like this to facilitate easy and quick content creation, though I think this is less relevant given the ability to copy text from old versions of articles (or user pages). -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 22:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)- I'd be fine with a project keeping a similar page as a sample for formatting purposes rather than an individual but the point is, it's not in use now and I'd say it's more misleading than helpful as it is right now given the possible changes in the templates and MOS over the years. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- After re-reading
WP:UP#COPIES, I saw the language that states
- There's still a
WP:WEBHOST and
WP:UP#COPIES issue then. It hasn't been edited since 2009 with the user inactive since 2011. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- If there were any prospect of it being actually active or under development, it would seem an appropriate use of userspace, for material that would potentially improve Wikipedia. I don't think it falls under not webhost. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:19, 9 October 2015 (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.
- 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Owen spencer/generic law firm
Userspace attempt to create a template for London law firm articles. Not used and not an appropriate user of usespace. Ricky81682 ( talk) 12:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm not really sure why this is an inappropriate use of userspace.Weak support: WP:UP specifically states that editors may keep drafts in their userspace. Furthermore, WP:ATD states that "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Even if this did qualify for deletion, WP:UP#DELETE states that"[e]xcept for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion"
. Pages like this help users create new articles based on a common content structure, which in turn helps us build a bigger, better encyclopedia. Shouldn't we encourage, rather than discourage content creation? If an article fails to meet GNG or violates policy in some way, we can deal with that on a case-by-case basis. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's still a
WP:WEBHOST and
WP:UP#COPIES issue then. It hasn't been edited since 2009 with the user inactive since 2011. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- After re-reading
WP:UP#COPIES, I saw the language that states
"[o]ld copies of mainspace articles should be deleted if unused"
. If it is true that this material is "unused," then it looks like Wikipedia policy calls for its deletion. I have therefore struck my previous vote. However, there are two reasons why my support is weak in this case: (1) Although this may have the look and feel of a mainspace article, there is no identifiable content to relate this page to any person or organization -- there is likely to be little-to-no confusion about this being a real article about a specific law firm. (2) I think Wikipedia should allow users to keep "fill in the blank" pages like this to facilitate easy and quick content creation, though I think this is less relevant given the ability to copy text from old versions of articles (or user pages). -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 22:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)- I'd be fine with a project keeping a similar page as a sample for formatting purposes rather than an individual but the point is, it's not in use now and I'd say it's more misleading than helpful as it is right now given the possible changes in the templates and MOS over the years. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- After re-reading
WP:UP#COPIES, I saw the language that states
- There's still a
WP:WEBHOST and
WP:UP#COPIES issue then. It hasn't been edited since 2009 with the user inactive since 2011. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- If there were any prospect of it being actually active or under development, it would seem an appropriate use of userspace, for material that would potentially improve Wikipedia. I don't think it falls under not webhost. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:19, 9 October 2015 (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.