Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dheerajthakwani

 __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. ✗ plicit  23:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Dheerajthakwani

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Courtesy ping who tagged this for WP:U5 speedy deletion; I declined because it's clearly intended to be an article, but the topic already exists at Makar Sankranti. This userpage was created around the same time as the article was started, and the article's history looks like other pages were merged into it at some point, but I don't see any reason to suspect a cut-and-paste move here. Since this userpage hasn't been modified and the user hasn't edited in nearly a decade I don't see any reason to preserve it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE per nom [edit: I mean WP:COPIES, they're next to one another...].—Alalch E. 19:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - We need a reason to delete, not just an absence of a compelling reason to keep. There's simply no valid deletion rationale provided. As per WP:STALE (the section people are citing when they WP:VAGUEWAVE to "fake article", if the draft is not problematic (e.g. no BLP, reliability, promotional issues) but not ready for mainspace, let it be. Otherwise we could delete absolutely all userspace drafts as "fake articles". &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:COPIES is the reason to delete and Ivanvector is also incorrect: this is a copy and paste. See page comparison: the only differences are the infobox name and the fact the user didn't copy anything below the "See also" section. If you look in the history of the user page you can also see he pasted the Tom Cruise article there before pasting Makar Sankranti over it. Uhai (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection to deletion if it's a copy. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it turns out the original revision of that page is also a copy, this time of an external website. I've revdeleted that revision. The others could be recovered by repairing attribution, or they could be revdeleted to leave a blank userpage, but I still think it's unnecessary busywork to keep a blank userpage with all its history revdeleted for a user with a total of five edits, three of them copyvios, a decade ago, versus the simple solution of just deleting it. This would not be eligible for WP:REFUND because of the attribution failures and copyvios but if they happen to come back and want a blank userpage or any other sort of userpage they'd be free to create a new one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * it's unnecessary busywork to keep a blank userpage with all its history revdeleted for a user with a total of five edits, three of them copyvios, a decade ago, versus the simple solution of just deleting it I'd only dispute this in general. How is it more "unnecessary busywork" to blank a page like this and move on rather than creating a whole new page for a deletion discussion, soliciting opinions/debate/time from multiple other users, and then deleting it? Again, this is just in principle regarding pages that can just be blanked. If it's a copyvio/copy, that's a separate issue, though, so I suppose not the best example of the "just blank, don't mfd" approach. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't say I disagree in retrospect, but we're into sunk costs now. It's perfectly acceptable to me to blank and revdelete, and then leave the blank page as is, and this will still have been a marginally productive discussion. And one I'll keep in mind should the situation arise again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:COPIES per my above comment. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, a  would have sufficed, though since this is at MfD now: delete. Uhai (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhododendrites. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fake article or redirect or provide a link to Makara Sankranti . Robert McClenon (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:COPIES. (There is no FAKEARTICLE). Whether the copying of Tom Cruise, or Makar Sankranti from Feb 2014, this history is unattributed copying without subsequent input, and so is an attribution hazard that should be deleted, exactly per WP:COPIES. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete – Obviously WP:FAKEARTICLE, a very large amount of content was added before the Makar Sankranti article existed, meaning WP:COPIES doesn't apply. Toadette  (Happy holiday!) 17:06, 6 December 2023 (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.