Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:08murtaghkc/Bradley Stoke Community School

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:08murtaghkc/Bradley Stoke Community School


WP:STALEDRAFT - Content used at Bradley Stoke Community School. Syrthiss (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above policy. We don't need two pages about this. T  C  N7 JM  17:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep . The above is not policy. Neither does it call for deletion. Please read the text behind the shortcut. Blank or redirect, and only after attempting to talk to the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sorry, the above guideline. There's no reason to blank a subpage in userspace or redirect it to something in articlespace, which is why I think it should be deleted. T  C  N7 JM  14:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a number of advantages to blanking over deletion in someone else's userspace. Can you really not think of any?
 * Also, I'll drop a line on the user's talk, but note that he hasn't edited since December 2011. T  C  N7 JM  14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll get right on contacting the user who hasn't edited since 2011. It's easy enough to restore. Unlikely at this point that they are coming back. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Usually, it is rude to delete someone else's userpages, so a reason better than one allcaps word is needed. Are you sure that there is no material that may be useful to the mainspace article? Are you sure that the user will never return and have an interest in their past edits?  Possibly you looked into this further than your nomination suggests. I expect a decent nomination to justify deleting another's workspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per JohnCD, as a mainspace content fork (not STALEDRAFT). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have looked into the history. This was a new draft version of the article, prepared by on 13/14 December 2011, largely based on the school website. At 00:38 14 December that was finished, and at 00:46 he pasted it over the Bradley Stoke Community School article with this edit, so all that is properly attributed.  promptly took some of it out again, 08murtaghkc replaced it and at 22:27, 14 December 2011 Bob Re-born removed it again, saying (correctly) that it was "a direct copy/paste from the school's prospectus and frankly it is also spammy". After that 08murtaghkc did not edit the article again, though two days later he did make some changes to the userspace version. What we have now in this version is a fork from the main article. Because they were edited in parallel, a history merge is not possible, and 08murtaghkc's contribution to the main article is adequately attributed. Parallel versions are to be discouraged, because of the danger of cut-and-paste moves and confusing histories. JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per  and WP:UP, which states (my bolding): "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Cunard (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.