Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aj45218/Dynamic modeling

 __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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 12:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Aj45218/Dynamic modeling


I can't figure out where this stale draft is trying to go. It lacks context and references. We don't have Dynamic modeling or Dynamic Modeling as articles. I suggest we delete this. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no need for someone not interested in the topic to try to figure it out.  It is a good draft, with references, and there are no time limits.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a copy of State diagram. Viable options are to redirect to State diagram (implying that the user should work there instead) or replace with Inactive userpage blanked or do nothing (keep).  There is additional material in this draft, and the information is not stale.  Remove the AfC template if that is the problem.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a copy. Fine in userspace indefinitely. If it were in DraftSpace, I would say "Merge and redirect to a new section at Talk:State diagram, consistent with the policy WP:PRESERVE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "It's not a copy, but it also doesn't add anything useful". That is an opinion.  Opinions like this belong on talk pages.  Merge and redirect to talk:State diagram.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a stale draft of a user who has not edited in 5 years and as a duplicate of State diagram, so there's no useful information being lost. ~ RobTalk 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a copy, but it also doesn't add anything useful. There may even be some copyvios concerns - at least one sentence is a direct copy from one of the sources. And there is simply no substantive difference between placing Inactive userpage blanked on a page versus deleting and mentioning WP:REFUND in the deletion message. ~ RobTalk 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's the same topic. If a separate draft were to be created, it would be subject to deletion because it would be a duplicate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't leave old stale draft lying around indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:26, 8 April 2016 (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.