Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ertyqway/Creativity Draft

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 debate was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ertyqway/Creativity Draft

Reason for prod was fork. Burningjoker (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question...why did you remove the prods just to bring them to MFD if you clearly don't disagree with them? --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prod should only be used on articles, as its wording and documentation make clear. This isn't an article. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prod can also be used on user and user:talk pages. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then it should definitely say so in the documentation. The current wording says it is for articles, as does the template itself. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does say so on the WP:PROD page: 'The only exceptions to this rule are pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia.' Not prominently enough though, I agree - I only discovered that line myself a week or two ago. Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm. Okay - I've proposed at Template talk:Prod that the wording of both {{Prod}} and {{Prod/doc}} be changed to reflect teh wording at WP:PROD. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Delete. This is clearly inactive (look at the history) and unlikely to ever become an article, so there's no need to keep it. Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the above two. I completely agreed with the prods. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, blank or use __NOINDEX__ if we need to avoid it coming up on search engines. And someone needs to tell Guy that prods are not for userpages. We don't delete userpages for inactive users simply because they are inactive. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be, WP:PROD does say you can prod userpages. That's an easy fix [1]. Most of us were under the impression that userpages are not prodable, mostly due to the fact that userpages are far less watched than article pages. I doubt I'll need to formalize this change, but if I must it, then it won't be hard. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're going to have to "formalize the change". That's a pretty big change in policy your edit is making there, and you should go through the proper channels for it. And don't worry, there are people keeping an eye on Userpage prods to (like myself...I remember seeing these three specifically). --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever way such a dicussion goes, it's important that the template/doc and WP:PROD don't contradict each other. And it's better handled elsewhere than here, since this has probably been a long enough digression on an MfD :) Grutness...wha? 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The content of this article is not suitable for inclusion in any article (it's almost an essay on the subject of creativity), and it does indeed seem to be an "abandoned fork". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, long-abandoned draft, was a perfectly appropriate PROD. --Stormie (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (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.