Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Stale unfiled RfAs

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: no consensus. To be more specific, it is Keep for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 and No consensus for the rest. Aside from one where the nominations was withdrawn already and the one keep (where the editor in question showed to comment), there was mostly divided opinion, and the proposed alternatives were vague. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stale unfiled RfAs

Group of stale unfiled RfAs

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Toadette^Edit! 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these has either been languishing since ~~before~~ 2021 or is the creation of a sockblocked user, or both. I don't think these retain any historical or practical value, so I'm putting these up for deletion here. If someone wants to root through the 2022s or even the horribly malformed ones from 2024 that are pretty clearly abandoned, up to them :) I thought these would be a good start. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, obviously per nom. It's a shame they're not CSDable; if they were drafts they'd be dead already. ——Serial Number 54129 20:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and, if necessary, speedy-close them as unfiled/malformed. There's plenty of random crap in RfA space; as late as last October, about 58 of the entries in Wikipedia:2005 requests for adminship had no tallies in the table. As I was going through them, it occurred to me that a lot of them were kind of stupid; nonetheless they're part of the historical record. Fot example, one of the people in that list you post is now a famous tweetfluencer under the same name, and one of them was as I recall a rather well-known figure of the old days. If the presence of old unfiled RfAs is messing up some statistics, I think that is a good argument to actually close them, but I think deleting them runs the risk of putting ragged holes in the history of project governance for no clear benefit. jp×g 🗯️ 06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: historical pages are meant to serve as records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. These don't do that. They were never filed, attracted no discussion, and are not retained in any table or log as a useful reference. How exactly are they part of the history of the project governance? They're no more a part of it than article drafts are, and we delete those after six months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g 🗯️ 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmanlucas is still active and may be planning to file still (last edit a week or two ago)

LewisT34, JASDVI and AndrewSE19 are NOTNOW SNOWs, Shonyx and OliveTree39 are socks.

Mr.Mani Raj Paul is a very premature RfA (was made five months after the account -- by now, six years later, they are 14,000 edits deeper and may have a chance of passing -- who knows), similar situ with Countryboy603.

If I'm going to be totally honest it feels like the socks are -- I mean, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix was a sock RfA, it would obviously be silly to delete that. I think sock RfAs are probably useful for establishing a modus operandi for socks, or at least as useful as the other stuff we keep around. We don't delete the talk pages of vandals/socks, for example, even though those are 99% useless crap. jp×g 🗯️ 08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parys and olivetree39 would be G5 eligible (Shonyx is the sockmaster, so not G5able; Eostrix wouldn't be G5able either). Any objection to me speedying those two?

LewisT34, JASDVI, and AndrewSE19 would be NOTNOW/SNOW if they were ever filed, which they weren't.

Mr.Mani Raj Paul, Countryboy603, and Jmanlucas would be welcome to request REFUNDs if they really wanted to work off of these versions, but they've given no indication that they still intend to run and would probably prefer to start fresh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe's idea to userfy them seems pretty smart, so I would be fine with keeping the ones that are significant-in-some-vague-sense, and then userfying the ones that would otherwise be deleted. jp×g 🗯️ 22:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and blank all, assuming those created by a blocked sockpuppet are already deleted per G5. There is no need or good reason to hide the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as none are serving any sort of purpose. –Davey2010^Talk 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ones from active users with high enough # of contribs to reasonably pass an RfA (Jmanlucas, etc.); let them proceed at their own pace. No opinion on the rest, but I wouldn't be particularly upset if the result is deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ignore. No harm in keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19. I responded to the 'Requests for adminship are now being considered' type notice the only way I knew how. Was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 the wrong way to apply? I received no response, positive or negative. I sometimes struggle with editing but seek to improve. Though I still aspire to be an admin I realise that I may not yet be as technically able or have enough dedicated time as the role demands. The intention of my request for adminship was genuine even if the method of my application was incorrect, therefore Keep. AndrewSE19 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep at current titles, but do not delete. The option was presented above to "userfy", so that may be an option. Either way, these RFAs never went live, so keeping them at their current titles is misleading since the structures of these titles assume they are the 1st time these editors were subject to a live RFA, which never happened. Maybe the creation of a page such as Wikipedia:Requests or adminship (drafts) may need to be created to allow these never-live RFA pages to become subpages of it, in addition to potentially being a landing page for potential RFA candidates to post their draft RFA statements prior to moving them as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship when they go live. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Turns out one of these pages, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand, was previously nominated for deletion previously in 2021: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand. The discussion resulted in "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except AndrewSE19 as obsolete useless cruft. If a specific user wants a specific request userfied, I have no objection, otherwise these pages' existence is pointless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless and to preserve the page history. C F A 💬 02:08, 11 August 2024 (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.