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: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dharmadhyaksha/Vasant Prabhu

[edit]

Stale userspace draft by an inactive user. The subject does not appear to meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would have been scoped up G13 in draft space. Not a webhost applies. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination fails WP:NMFD. Plausibly notable dead composer. Not stale. Inactive user is not a deletion reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I fail to understand this vote. This draft is stale, having last been edited by a user three years ago. WP:NMFD isn't an issue here, as the a WP:BEFORE search indicated that he isn't notable (I qualify it as "appears" with the acknowledgement that there maybe a bunch of Hindi-language books or articles or somesuch that my search failed to return), but frankly the WP:NMFD doens't matter because this draft was created 10 years ago and hasn't been edited in three. The author(s) had plenty of time to establish notability, if it exists. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not “stale” because it is not a developing topic that needs attention. The content is not becoming out-of-date. “Stale” is a particularly poor choice of word that I wish I could get off WP:UP. There are no time limits, except not the G13 six months, which comes with WP:REFUND/G13. NMFD is most relevant for nominators who state “does not appear to meet” <notability guideline>. You are not even sure. MfD is not for evaluating notability questions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you mean by stale, you're using it differently than most of the rest of us are. Category:Stale userspace drafts quite clearly defines a stale draft as one "that has not been edited for over a year." Also, notability is not the primary reason I nominate this for deletion, which is why I argue NMFD not to be pertinent; I nominate this for deletion because it is a stale draft, per WP:NOTWEBHOST criterion #2, with the apparent lack of notability being the reason I don't instead move it to the mainspace. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do dislike jargon, and otherwise common words being used as jargon is worse. If merely old and abandoned, use ((Inactive userpage blanked)), created for this very purpose. Imagine if every such page had to pass through mfd. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Stale, at least in regard to userspace drafts, traditionally refers to WP:STALE (i.e. the guideline for handling such "stale" pages; the latter half is especially relevant in this case) here at MfD. That aside, NOTWEBHOST criterion #2 only concerns files.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMFD and my comment above.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless use of user space for a draft that might or might not ever be accepted. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, including no deadline to get rid of harmless drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone above me - For once this is actually a perfect and is something that should be moved over to mainspace (I've only glanced over it so if it's not perfect then ignore this). –Davey2010^Talk 22:32, 29 April 2018 (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.