User:Casliber/Terry (Fawlty Towers)

User:Casliber/Terry (Fawlty Towers) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is basically WP:STALEDRAFT territory. The page was deleted at AfD in May, and restored to Casliber's userspace immediately afterwards by his own request, because he intended to work on the sourcing. However, he has not edited it once since, and it has remained completely static [1] 4 months down the line, I think it's time to delete this page as per the AfD consensus and since it is clear that Casliber is not planning to work on it. (Or, if he is planning to work on it, it can be restored when he gets round to it. There is no reason to keep copies of deleted pages kicking around for months on end for no purpose.)

Just a brief note on the timing issue: the amount of time before WP:STALEDRAFT has been successfully invoked at MfD has varied; 10 months, 7 months, 6 months, 3 months. I think that 4 months is an appropriate amount of time to expect to see at least some evidence that the page hasn't simply been abandoned, which is what seems to have happened in this case. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think 12 months should be the time Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that firstly, that is not the general practice (as the examples above demonstrate), and secondly, it opens the possibility for abuse: I could ask an admin to restore every single deleted page to my userspace and just extend their life for a year.
  This Terry page hasn't been edited once since deletion. It's clearly not a work in progress. I think it is inappropriate to enable deleted pages to be revived just for the hell of it. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two questions:

1. Is there a good reason you didn't discuss this with Casliber first?
2. Are you trying to get banned? → ROUX ₪ 11:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that's 'no' and 'yes' respectively, then? Righto. I'm predicting a permanent block for you within 24 hours. → ROUX ₪ 12:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed that my answer to your first question was obvious (I predicted a tokenistic edit to the page to say 'look ive edited it now go away' – as has now happened) and that your second question wasn't relevant to this MfD. Perhaps I was mistaken on the first count, but I'm fairly sure I'm correct on the second. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 12:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, I was right. Carry on. → ROUX ₪ 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I generally give non-promotional user page drafts six months. Four months falls two months short of my personal standard. Keep also per the fact that the nominator did not discuss the page with Casliber prior to starting the nomination. Had Casliber indicated that he had no intention of working on the page, I would have supported deletion. Cunard (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reminding me...see? Out-of-universe material and reference-adding. I borrowed this book from the library too late for the AfD, but was apathetic....gosh darn, I dips me lid to someone who tries so so hard to make wikipedia a better place, and here is little old me who just adds fluff about the place.....but seriously, this page is alot more encyclopedic than the monologue that you battled so hard to keep on your userpage, so I (not surprisingly) vote for a stay of execution (i.e. keep) - unfortunately I have to visit a place called a li-brar-y to find more stuff. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This page is alot more encyclopedic than the monologue that you battled so hard to keep on your userpage – aside from being a rather apalling instance of WP:OSE, and aside from the fact that the material on my userpage didn't purport to being an encyclopedia article (hence MfD not AfD), and the fact that a consensus found the Terry article not to be encyclopedic/notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 11:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) Appalling has two 'p's (2) got more material from one source, (3) consensus can change, and (4) remember the adage about each edit should be bettering the encyclopedia somehow? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2 — "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations ... which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption". Warden (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  ...although since I have provided (a) a policy basis, and (b) links to multiple parallel past cases, I'd suggest that that doesn't apply. Furthermore, I'd suggest that you know that that doesn't apply. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 12:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You have cited a guideline not a policy. That guideline suggests moving stale drafts to WP:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. It advises against trying to delete user pages as this is likely to be taken as a personal affront. Please explain why you have not followed this guidance. Warden (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Decent draft, actively worked on. "STALEDRAFT" is a very poor reason on its own to delete something. No valid reasons here to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see any problem here. Melburnian (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]