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, for so many reasons: long-abandoned draft; using Wikipedia as a free webhost; draft for page promoting project that died four years ago (which I only know because I found the creator's blog); draft for page about copyright-violating fanmade project that never came any closer to notability than being mentioned in blogpost comments and on social media, and the "company" that made it only exists in a webpage on Angelfire, and there's a dedicated Wikia for PDOA but it only ever had one registered user, who edited for 23 minutes in September 2010, and then one anon who posted a 'you guys are cool' message in December 2011. Nobody cares about PDOA. Nobody cares about PDOA. Nobody cares about PDOA. Not even the people who created PDOA care about PDOA. I found the home page of the guy who made PDOA, and in 2015 he listed all the software projects he's been involved in as of 2015, and it does not mention PDOA because he was only fourteen when he made that. It does not meet notability requirements. It never met notability requirements. I feel safe in saying that it never will meet notability requirements. If you want the page restored, you are wrong.DS (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 07:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace draft from 2008 for a non-notable video game. Userified after Pokemon: Den of Ages deleted it for the third time in April 2008 for A7 issues. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem like it will be of any use. Brustopher (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and stop wasting space at MfD with blankable harmless old stuff. A7-ed, yes, but the page is not worth the examination to decide whether deletion is the right thing. If old userfied deleted content hurts you, take it to Wikipedia_talk:Userfication and come up with a more reasonable solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted under A7. This was the examination. It violated our default bare minimum requirements for mainspace. If you think there's even a chance, argue to draftify it and look it over yourself. If you want it blanked, isn't that admitting that the draft isn't going anywhere? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Pokemon stuff has been condensed, with much now buried behind redirects. It is not productive to hunt it down and revdelete. Neither is it productive to scour userspace and delete everything related to the uncondensed material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yes, blanking means we think it doesn't look like it is going anywhere, yes. It is a remnant of the Pokemon cruft wars, a particular battlefront of WP:NOTPLOT. There is nothing to be gained by discussion every discovered remnant. Most of that cruft lies in the history behind redirects, and there is nothing wrong with leaving it accessible there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the Pokemon notability issues. It's an article on a non-notable web game that was repeatedly A7 deleted in mainspace and this version was userified in 2008 to here after which nothing was done. Does asking for userification mean that the content can literally sit around forever? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is Pokemon cruft, failing notability thresholds. The battles were completed, concluded, there is no need for more discussion, just blank/redirect remaining cruft. Save MfD for things worth the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an eight year old Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content. Policy allows for the userifying admin to unliterally re-delete the content "if, for example, an intention to improve the page is not carried out." Why oppose the same deletion with a discussion in this case? Would you have been happier if I just asked User:discospinster to delete it unilaterally since it hasn't been worked on since the initial userification? The point of userification was a hope that the editor would actually improve on the draft. If you're going to say that pages that were userified after a deletion should remain forever, then userification policy should be tighened heavily. We don't blank mainspace pages after a deletion, it seems bizarre to blank it because the same content was moved to userspace after a discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not inherently problematic material, just excessive WP:PLOT I believe. It may be useful in adding or maintaining content in broader articles, or may have already been used. Best for editors interested in the area to look after content in the area. The material is safe to ignore at worst, and possibly of future use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sources, no indication that this is actually notable. It wasn't notable eight years ago, and I can't find a single source today that shows that this is notable. If you think there's actually use for this, then vote to keep it but if you want to just blank it knowing that there's not a chance this will ever be useful, why in the world should any admin agree to userfication if all you get is that the draft stays around for all time even if the editor never works on it again? If this was a WP:REFUND request today, we'd evaluate this again in six months and delete it back and forth a dozen times in the amount of time this has been ignored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to summarise the WP:PLOT history, or can I point you to the archives of WT:NOT, POKEMON-specific stuff is probably in other places though. The notability question you pose is non-applicable to userspace, how many near-unanimous RfCs on that question will it take for you to take heed?
Even on the notabilty question, Wikipedia-notability only applies to whether the topic deserves a stand alone article. It does not speak to article content. This material is appropriate, more condensed, within broader articles. As PLOT material within another article, non-independent primary sources are sufficient. Just leave it alone. There is no NOTWEBHOSTing going on. There is no need to "clean" this history, not this page in particular, but all similar stuff. Leave it for subject-interested editors, stop trying to manage all other users. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an online RPG. I don't care about the subject matter; if we cut all that off, we still don't have a single independent source about it out there. Have you found one? The url is a broken link, it was previously hosted on another site, I don't have any ideas on where you think the content would go. The game is dead. It would be an atrocious misuse to put someone illegal copyright violating basically ROM hack anywhere in the universe of Template:Pokémon spin-offs. You do realize that this was not some any official game, right? Someone just took the main game and hacked their own version out of it. It was posted here for like a few years and the thing has vanished for all time. None of the creators are notable, nothing about this is anything beyond pure spam, the kinds of which there are hundreds of a day and which are normally and repeated deleted without a single second thought as to the potential impact on anyone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You do realize that this was not some any official game, right"
No, I don't know much at all about this game. I know it has ghits. Perhaps you should amend your nomination. "non-notable video game" is not a deletion reason in userspace. You need to say something stronger. At a minimum, assuming we trust you, I expect you to assert that the content is not suitable anywhere in mainspace in any form. Wikipedia-notability refers to standalone topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/return to mainspace. It's a pretty recent draft. Last discussion wasn't even a decade ago, deserves a second chance. 166.176.56.32 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To emphasis this again, a decade. It's only been eight years since this was userfied. I guess if kept, we'll have to wait until 2026 for the next discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2016 (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.
