Is this intended for any page in user space? I ask because "user page" usually refers to their main user page and I am not aware of any reason that such pages should be blanked or deleted just because a user is inactive. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where the main userpage is a fake article it should simply be deleted. The same applies for any sub-pages. The only legitimate use I can find for this template is on main user pages containing biographical detail on missing users which may get significantly out-of-date; I'd go so far as to support a general guideline amendment to include the use of this template. But for anything that falls under STALEDRAFT the appropriate course of action is MfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "fake article" is a subjective judgement, and editors make widely differing subjective judgements in this space. This template is good for anything that is probably not useful, but is not worth the time and effort required to decide. It will neatly remove problem abandoned userspace content, and where the content is actually OK, the wording of the template does not imply that there was a problem, the returning editor is most welcome to unblank and resume work. "STALEDRAFT the appropriate course of action is MfD" has proven a foolish notion, because STALEDRAFT includes enough things to completely break MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
