Hi JesseW, I am a MediaWiki developer who wrote mw:Extension:PureWikiDeletion, a first attempt at a pure wiki deletion (I prefer to call it semi-deletion, by the way) prototype that has been deprecated in favor of a forthcoming better system. Ideally, we should put semi-deletion capability into the MediaWiki core. Then it would be easier for it to become the norm across the wikisphere. There really is no reason for wikis to have to delete pages that simply aren't yet ready for prime time but could be improved to become so. Semi-deletion would remove it from view of the search engines and therefore put it out of the view of the casual public, which seems to be the major concern. (Although an alternative might be a trash namespace excluded from search engines by robots.txt.)
If we can make some technical changes to the core, it could make it easier and more efficient to implement this system. I started a conversation at mw:Talk:Requests_for_comment/Page_deletion#Semi-deletion.2C_aka_pure_wiki_deletion on this topic. Right now, deleted revisions are stored in the archive table; this system blows, especially for semi-deletion purposes. It sets up a different process for viewing deleted revisions, which requires a separate database query to look at those revisions, unless we do some sort of query that can do both, maybe a join or a union (my SQL skills suck, so I'm not sure). At any rate, by default the deleted revisions don't appear in the history on the UI or API sides of things; you have to go to separate special pages or modules for that.
What this boils down to is that we need some comment on either the aforementioned RFC or bugzilla:55398 about these issues. Thus far, there simply hasn't been much input. I would like to get this implemented in MediaWiki 1.23. Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Move from Commons
Aloha! I moved the essay you wanted to a new subpage: User:JesseW/Permission to edit or submit to Wikimedia projects. I included the file history and added nowiki to the DR for good measure. That should satisfy the licensing requirements. Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)