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. RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AviatorTJ/SpaceKraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A page by an acct that is otherwise a non-contributor abandoned in userspace 7 years ago. The page creator claims they created the game. Zero chance this will become an article. U5 was declined and lead to this discussion Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#U5_timing. If this becomes a trend, U5 is pretty much dead as a useful criteria and MfD can expect a whole lot of abandoned dead end pages to follow. Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete U5 and G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. G11 is appropriate by me. At the earlier discussion three people suggested U5 was inappropriate, therefore a U5 speedy would be controversial, and so invalid, now. It is just a very poor abandoned draft by an inexperienced user. It could have been left alone but since it's here I'll say delete. Thincat (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

people who don't agree with U5 in general do not invalidate the criteria. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... but these objections were not general, they were specific to the U5 on this specific userspace draft. WP:CSD: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases" and it seems to me the discussion you linked to removed this particular page from being an obvious case. Thincat (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not look like obvious U5 or obvious G11, and U5 and G11 are meant to be obvious. However, abandoned for seven years by editor who has gone away for seven years. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had thought that too until my attention was drawn to User talk:AviatorTJ. Thincat (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page under deletion itself says this editor created this game under References. As a minimum its a COI. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; not useful, and shouldn't be speedied because there's no clear way to determine whether or not it qualifies for speedy. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is junk. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete slowly. This is a draft of an encyclopaedia article that is not a copyvio, not exclusively promotional, not an attack page and is not a substantially identical recreation of a previously deleted page, therefore speedy deletion is not appropriate. However it is also not a useful draft, so deletion after this discussion is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 21 November 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.