Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paxomen/In the Heavyskies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep. John254 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Paxomen/In the Heavyskies

Not encyclopedic. Speedy-deletion candidate userfied in November and untouched since then.WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute or permanent home for not-ready-for-primetime articles. Calton | Talk 06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Calton, I have already told you before you nominated this for deletion, that I will get around to working more on this, please accept what I have said and Assume good faith. Right now I have other priorites like fixing the citing for articles in urgent need of citing, and for example in the next few days, an article which I got featured is going to be on the front page. If you check my contributions over the last 12 months I have drafted many articles and then put them on Wikipedia, or, if more appropiate at the time of article completion, on a Buffy wiki. We should encourage people to make significant contributions, since the vast majority of editors only make regular small edits. So we should enmcourage more major contributions even if that involves using a small amount of userspace to draft articles over time. I'm not sure it is a good idea to waste the time of editors by nominating what are clearly article drafts in userspace for deletion. And to be honest, it is things like this that put many perople off spending much time editing Wikipedia. I can certainly say that this effort to delete my article draft after I have already said to the nominator I will get around to working on it helps to encouarage me to spend less time trying to make this encyclopedia better, and more time in real life. -- Paxomen 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion This ed. is a major contributor to the Buffy pages and should be allowed all the time necessary. It is not a unrelated posting, but relevant to the editor's work on WP, and is not harmful in ins present position. The eds. use of userspace is in conformity to WP policy. DGG 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• ..should be allowed all the time necessary Really? What gives them a pass?
• ..The eds. use of userspace is in conformity to WP policy. User pages are okay for TEMPORARY use as holding places for potential articles. Given that the article is, as is, a borderline speedy deletion and a guaranteed loser at AFD -- I mean, it's not just a fan film, it's a fan film which hasn't even been made yet -- vague promises that some day, somehow, he'll fix it up in conformity don't you worry even (if he's done nothing whatsoever with it in nearly four months), no, it isn't in conformity with WP:NOT. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment: See Wikipedia:There is no deadline, a pertinent essay. IvoShandor 09:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now: It looks like a work in progress that probably took longer than the user expected (possibly due to the user being busy in real life).--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the actual work done since its creation is, well, zero, then we can expect, at that rate, a completion date somewhere around the Heat Death of the Universe? --Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG and Wiki Fanatic. I don't see a serious issue here. Calton, please tone down the strident rhetoric. Newyorkbrad 13:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me? What are you going on about? Get a grip. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Calton, after reading your comments below, tone down the rhetoric, second call. This is, at best, a borderline situation, and you are responding to every opinion opposite yours as if there were involved some deep matter of moral principle, to the point that one begins to wonder if you have a deeper grievance than with this particular page. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now - Work in progress. Not being used inappropiately. -- Paxomen 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The purpose of userfication isn't to allow people to work on something at some indefinite point in the future. When you intend on working on it, ask for a userfied copy, not before. Actually, I'm not entirely convinced that it could be made a decent article until the thing comes out... -Amarkov moo! 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep for now. Allow me to address the reasons for deletion presented so far:

1) WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute - This statement is not actually found on WP:NOT. What the policy actually says in full is: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site... Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet." And clearly this is not an attempt to make a personal webpage or a blog.

And clearly this is not an attempt to make a personal webpage or a blog. Keeping stuff that doesn't belong in mainspace IS an attempt to use it a webspace provider, wikilawyering about precise wording notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I am 'wikilawyering', I think it should be important for every wikipedian to at least have read properly the core official policies of Wikipedia, and understand why they are official policies - in this case WP:NOT. Whereas you are manipulating the wording to make it seem like the that policy supports your nomination, I am very concerned you are using far too much sujective analysis. Who are you to decide if it "doesn't belong", how do you know he plans to keep it there in that state permantly? You are ignoing the passage: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia". The draft is relevant to working on the encyclopedia, that is pretty much non-debatable (he isn't storing it as a web page for others to view - it is there as a draft specifically for future work relating to encyclopedic activities). You might also want to have a proper read of the guideline, Wikipedia:User page, though please do not edit that guideline unless you have consensus. There you will also find "There are several common uses for user subpages" which include "To plan large changes to articles, new articles, or allow Wikipedians to draft graphical layout overhauls." No where does it give users a strict time limit to finish a particular article. -- Buffyverse 01:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

2) WP is not a permanent home for not-ready-for-primetime articles - Again this statement is not actually found on WP:NOT. The relevant passage is already stated above in full, and to repeat the most relevant part, "may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia". In fact it makes no reference as to how long wikipedians have to finish working on their draft articles. And to add to this, Carlton, how do you know this is a "permanent home", especially when Paxomen says he will work on it, after more urgent matters are attended to? And then decide if it good enough to (a) go on Wikipedia (b) go on a Buffy Wiki

Given that he's done absolutely nothing -- zero, nada, nil, goose egg, zilch, bupkis -- in the three-and-a-half months since he made it, essentially full-formed, I'd say the burden is on him to show he wants to make it into a real article. If doesn't have time now, well, let him add it back when he does: he needs it sitting in user space instead of his own hard drive why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you feel it is so important and worth taking up the time of editors to put "the burden on him to show he wants to make it into a real article". In little more than a year this user has made already more than 10 000 edits, has got an article featured, has created many Buffy articles, and received from three different users, The Original Barnstar, The Barnstar of High Culture, and The Oddball Barnstar. Do we need to put any more burden on him to work faster on one of his sideprojects? -- Buffyverse 01:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You ask "he needs it sitting in user space instead of his own hard drive?" That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia allows use of userspace for preparing articles, because you can see the mark-up as opposed to babbly code. Also hard drives can crash/corrupt in which case work could be lost. -- Buffyverse 01:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

3) I'm not entirely convinced that it could be made a decent article - then it will be a case of speedy deletion or AfD, we do not need to interfere with Wikipedians user space if they hold drafts that are clearly related to encyclopedia work. In fact this whole debate is taking time of wikipedians (including myself) who could be doing other things on the encyclopedia, but I feel I must stand up for the right for userspace to continue improving the encyclopedia. Preventing Users doing this would only decrease contributions to the project. -- Buffyverse 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not entirely convinced that it could be made a decent article" are not my words -- or anyone else's, for that matter -- so I have no idea why you're putting it in quotes. As a matter of fact, I'm entirely unconvinced that an article about a fan film -- which hasn't even been made yet, let me emphasize -- will ever be suitable for Wikipedia short of an excuse note signed by God Himself. But since the article creator hasn't made the slightest effort in the direction of making it ready, perhaps we'll never know. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're my words. It doesn't matter much, because my point is that this was presumably deleted, and I'm not sure it should have been userfied. -Amarkov moo! 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not grounds for deleting a draft of an article in someone's user space. It was userfied presumably so that it could be improved significantly enough to be made into an acceptable article, or be moved to a Buffy Wiki. If it results in an inappropiate Wikipedia article, then feel free to use the correct forum, Speedy deletion, or AfD. We don't need to start pre-emptively deleting sub-pages in user space, if they are being used to prepare encyclopedia contributions. And we certainly do not need to start giving wikipedians time limits to finish working on articles they are working on in their user space. -- Buffyverse 01:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not being used to prepare anything. It isn't being used. As I said before, I'd be perfectly amenable to having it undeleted when he does intend to work on it, but why should it be there if he isn't? -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused why two people who have written comments above cannot see that some tasks can be done over a longer period than three-four months? Students regularly do not do any work on their big dissertations for months at a time, it does not mean that there will be no further work. The user has said they will get round to it after more urgent work, why go through the effort of debating on the issue, deleting the user page, then later undeleting the user page? Not only does it only disrupt Wikipedia, it turns off valuable contributors. Calton could have just assumed good faith, especially since there is no genuine grounds for deletion in any official policy or well supported guideline I can see without getting into speculation about what could or could not happen. -- Buffyverse 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring me? I'm not saying that he can't work on it anymore because he hasn't yet. I'm saying that since he isn't working on it right now, there's no good reason why it has to sit there being unencyclopedic. -Amarkov moo! 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well then just one person is saying that because it has not been worked on in approx three months, it will never be worked on. You say "there's no good reason why it has to sit there being unencyclopedic". But in my opinion there is no good reason to waste time debating on the issue, deleting the user page, then later undeleting the user page? Especially since this very debate is taking up about as much space as the article. User space does not need to be up to the same encyclopedic standards as actual articles. That's why we have user space. All this should be fairly common knowledge. Have a good read of Wikipedia:There is no deadline, it may not be a policy or guideline, but it's logic is sound. If we want to create a quality encyclopedia, we should not rush the creation of articles until they are good enough. It is not for us to decide when a user should work, and if they have the ability to make the article good enough, there is no need for this kind of expectation and speculation. Let people draft articles at their own pace, even if they spend months doing other things to help out Wikipedia. -- Buffyverse 23:38, 10 March 2007 (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.