Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of civil law
- 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: Speedy Delete (G7). — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of civil law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Proposed outline for civil law with little to no actual content since 2007. It's not clear from the outline whether the outline refers to Civil law (common law) or Civil law (legal system) and it honestly could be either at the moment. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep- These are outlines created by an active editor who created them many years ago and edited most recently last year. I'd encourage The Transhumanist to think about whether these are actually going to go anywhere, and to CSD if not, but I see no reason to delete a draft started by an active editor that isn't actively harmful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)- While active, the editor hasn't edited any draft outline is close to a year. Transhumanist has been notified about these discussions so if there's no response, how long do we just keep waiting around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- You say "how long do we just keep waiting around" like you left him a message, then waited a while for a response, and resorted to MfD when you got none. As far as I can tell, you notified him as you nominated, when he had not edited in a few weeks (which is not to say the timing was intentional -- just pointing out that this is very much an active editor who should've been talked to first and isn't even around to defend/explain what he worked on/his intentions). So in response to "how long do we just keep waiting around" [before nominating for deletion], I would start with "more than 0". The point of my repeating that he's an active editor is because there's no emergency necessitating these be deleted now, and an active editor will almost certainly be around to engage in discussion about them before going down the deletion road. If The Transhumanist resumes editing and doesn't discuss this or doesn't come back for [a year? 6 months? I don't know what precedent dictates makes someone "inactive" -- more than a few weeks, to be sure], then I'd support deleting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not in his userspace. It's a draft he left in some obscure subpage of a wikiproject. If he left it in mainspace, would there be an argument that we should discuss it with him first? If it's in draftspace, would the same argument make sense? If he wanted to keep it around for his activity, then he could have put it in his own userspace but it's been sitting around as a WikiProject draft (which I don't know what to make of that) for over eight years. How am I supposed to know that this draft he still cares about versus the other dozens of old drafts when he hasn't even edited a single draft of this type in over a year? Keep it if you think there's a rationale for keeping but keeping it because the editor who started this eight years ago, hasn't been working on these drafts for over a year and went inactive for a few weeks needs to be informed beforehand and we should wait on him is just ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do think that drafts in draftspace should be discussed first if created by an active editor, yes, and don't see a reason to treat a draft in a wikiproject space, uncommon as that is, any differently. Regarding
How am I supposed to know...
, I'd just say by asking. All of this said, he's been back and participating at these AfDs, and has not spoken out to save this one. There's practically no usable content here, so if he's not interested, I'm certainly not. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do think that drafts in draftspace should be discussed first if created by an active editor, yes, and don't see a reason to treat a draft in a wikiproject space, uncommon as that is, any differently. Regarding
- It's not in his userspace. It's a draft he left in some obscure subpage of a wikiproject. If he left it in mainspace, would there be an argument that we should discuss it with him first? If it's in draftspace, would the same argument make sense? If he wanted to keep it around for his activity, then he could have put it in his own userspace but it's been sitting around as a WikiProject draft (which I don't know what to make of that) for over eight years. How am I supposed to know that this draft he still cares about versus the other dozens of old drafts when he hasn't even edited a single draft of this type in over a year? Keep it if you think there's a rationale for keeping but keeping it because the editor who started this eight years ago, hasn't been working on these drafts for over a year and went inactive for a few weeks needs to be informed beforehand and we should wait on him is just ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- You say "how long do we just keep waiting around" like you left him a message, then waited a while for a response, and resorted to MfD when you got none. As far as I can tell, you notified him as you nominated, when he had not edited in a few weeks (which is not to say the timing was intentional -- just pointing out that this is very much an active editor who should've been talked to first and isn't even around to defend/explain what he worked on/his intentions). So in response to "how long do we just keep waiting around" [before nominating for deletion], I would start with "more than 0". The point of my repeating that he's an active editor is because there's no emergency necessitating these be deleted now, and an active editor will almost certainly be around to engage in discussion about them before going down the deletion road. If The Transhumanist resumes editing and doesn't discuss this or doesn't come back for [a year? 6 months? I don't know what precedent dictates makes someone "inactive" -- more than a few weeks, to be sure], then I'd support deleting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- While active, the editor hasn't edited any draft outline is close to a year. Transhumanist has been notified about these discussions so if there's no response, how long do we just keep waiting around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Close and defer all Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines subpage management to discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines. Generally, these pages are placeholders for ideas, and should not be considered "drafts". The page discussed here is just an unfleshed template. It is probably a poor idea, but these outline ideas should be reviewed collectively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G7 (author request) – because the draft outine's title is ambiguous, I built the following outline instead: Outline of civil law (common law). The Transhumanist 05:08, 10 July 2016 (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.