Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gnotkcin/Apple ID




 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 02:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gnotkcin/Apple ID
Stale and unused user page sandbox article by user with one edit who has not returned. Miami33139 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Sandbox appears to be an exact copy of the ITunes article, to my eye. Appears to be a test edit.  ArcAngel (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with ArcAngel. If some work had been made on the article, I would have said to keep it, but nothing has been done with it. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The page is not in use, and I doubt that the erstwhile user will be coming back any time soon.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Gnotkcin's sole edit was to copy this version of iTunes.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As Test Edit.-- SKATER  Speak. 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Just copied. If the person who made it is gone then it's not good for anything.--Jessica Gordon (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as this discussion and any subsequent deletion are creating more trouble than the nominated page's existence. It is an exact copy of a revision of iTunes, though. Brian Jason Drake 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm curious - how is this discussion creating trouble? How does a deletion cause trouble (it only takes a couple of seconds for an admin)? --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Each write operation imposes significantly higher server load than a read operation, because of the need to keep multiple database servers synchronised. Brian Jason Drake 07:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that. I was always under the impression that we do not need to concern ourselves with server loads and the like - if this discussion was generating hundreds of responses per hour it might be significant, but the 13 edits (including this one, and the original creation) that have occurred are hardly likely to cause significant problems for the servers and databases - all the minor edits taking place *right now* would have more of an effect. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct: there is nothing significant about this case. I was comparing one really minor thing (all these discussion edits) to an even more minor thing (the existence of the nominated page). Brian Jason Drake 08:24, 5 October 2009 (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.