Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goldenglove/MMCOM


 * 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 Moved, deleted and kept as per Black Falcon below. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Goldenglove/MMCOM
Abandoned article in userspace, which also exists in articlespace. Article last edited almost 2 years ago, editor's last Wikipedia edit almost 1 year ago. Also nominating a number of other pages in the same user's space, similarly abandoned. All previously tagged for CSD, all declined. -- TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Goldenglove/UplImg
 * User:Goldenglove/TCELECTRONICSTEMP
 * User:Goldenglove/RODEMICS
 * User:Goldenglove/PUNGENTSTENCHLYRMUS
 * User:Goldenglove/PUNGENT6STUDIO
 * User:Goldenglove/SubPages
 * User:Goldenglove/Links
 * User:Goldenglove/MECACAROP
 * User:Goldenglove/FunShit (speedily deleted for WP:BLP issues)
 * User:Goldenglove/DBAUDIO
 * User:Goldenglove/AKGACOUSTICSTEMP
 * User:Goldenglove/OurBand

The pages are, in order:
 * Keep all, if there's no other reason other than the user hasn't edited in a while. Sandboxes are fine. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The other reason, as clearly stated in the nomination, is that these are drafts that have since been turned into articles. For examples: The final edit to User:Goldenglove/MMCOM is on the very day that MarilynManson.com was created, by this very editor.  Similarly, the day of the final edit to User:Goldenglove/AKGACOUSTICSTEMP is the very day that the editor copied and pasted xyr userspace draft into the actual article.  User:Goldenglove/DBAUDIO ceased to be edited once this editor created D&b audiotechnik.  And User:Goldenglove/TCELECTRONICSTEMP ceased to be edited (save for a replacement of a non-free image on a userspace page) once this editor created TC Electronic. Personally, I have a half a mind to do some swift history mergers, since these are really copy and paste "moves", from userspace to article space, in need of repair. Not all of them are, however.  Too much has been bundled into one MFD nomination, here.  User:Goldenglove/MECACAROP hasn't been made into an article, and is a perfectly valid userspace draft.  User:Goldenglove/Links is a random collection of external hyperlinks.  User:Goldenglove/PUNGENT6STUDIO is a now incorrect draft article for an album that looks set never to be released.  User:Goldenglove/UplImg was a gallery of non-free images, which we don't allow in userspace. And User:Goldenglove/FunShit I've just read and I'm having strong BLP concerns about.  Don't be surprised if it is swiftly gone in the very near future.  Uncle G (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if they've since been article-fied (hist merges aren't necessary if the user is the only contributor, FWIW) I still see no compelling reason for delete. Notwithstanding other issues, which I did not investigate. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can tell that you didn't investigate. &#9786;  I think that no-one, except perhaps the nominator (who isn't an administrator), had actually read all of the pages listed in this discussion until I did just now.  If anyone had, xe would have reacted the same as I did to the blatant BLP problem. History merger doesn't imply deleting the edit history.  Indeed, quite the contrary.  It involves retaining and repairing the edit history, so that the edits here form part of the history of the actual articles that were copy-and-paste "moved" to article space. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what a history merge is, but I still don't see it as a necessity unless there are other GFDL-significant contributors on the sandboxen. (Coincidentally, there is one on the MMCOM page, so that history should be merged upon the close of this MFD, with a redirect left to the article) – xeno  ( talk ) 20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who anywhere said it was a necessity? As I said, I personally have half a mind to do some, swiftly.  But that's because, as I said, too many widely differing pages, from outright BLP problems to perfectly valid userspace drafts for not-yet-existent articles, have been lumped into one discussion, here.  Do the history mergers (carefully, and backwards, to leave out the non-free-content 'bot edits), to fix up the copy-and-paste "moves", and we can cross the four drafts that were turned into articles off this list, leaving us to discuss the disposition of the rest, and help to prevent the trainwreck of a discussion that almost always otherwise happens whenever multiple widely differing pages are bundled into single deletion nominations.  Whittle away the non-contentious pages with non-contentious simple housekeeping solutions (Who is going to argue that merging the used drafts into the actual articles is anything but good?  Moreover, it is our normal housekeeping solution for this sort of thing.) and we can concentrate upon the contentious ones.  (I suspect that someone is going to object to keeping User:Goldenglove/Links around, for example.) Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, when you put it that way, it makes perfect sense to do this. ;> – xeno  ( talk ) 20:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all - There's nothing wrong with inactive sandboxes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're too late. One is gone.  &#9786;  And there was very much something wrong with it.  If you read the deleted revisions, you'll see straightaway what's wrong with it (I'm not going to compound the problem by repeating any of the content here.) and agree.  You'd have done the same as I did, had you come upon it first, I do not doubt.  Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as sandboxes, with very little usable content, for a user who is pretty clearly gone. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sets a dangerous precedent. I left for two years and came back. Where do we draw the line? – xeno  ( talk ) 12:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Histmerge the subpages that have been copied into the mainspace (#1, 3, 11, 12); delete the obsoleted lists of links (#2, 8, 13); weak delete the article sandboxes that do not prove notability (#4, 5, 6); article-fy the draft about the immunization program (#9); and keep the personal "to-do" list (#7) in case the user returns to editing.
 * User:Goldenglove/MMCOM - a sandbox whose content was copied into the article MarilynManson.com
 * User:Goldenglove/UplImg - a list of links to three non-existent files
 * User:Goldenglove/TCELECTRONICSTEMP - a sandbox whose content was copied into the article TC Electronic
 * User:Goldenglove/RODEMICS - a sandbox containing a one-sentence stub about a microphone manufacturer
 * User:Goldenglove/PUNGENTSTENCHLYRMUS - a sandbox containing a two-sentence stub about a musical group
 * User:Goldenglove/PUNGENT6STUDIO - a sandbox containing a stub about an album "to be released in 2007" by said musical group
 * User:Goldenglove/SubPages - a personal "to-do" list for the user
 * User:Goldenglove/Links - a list of external links
 * User:Goldenglove/MECACAROP - a userspace draft of an article about an immunization program
 * User:Goldenglove/FunShit - a sandbox already deleted for WP:BLP issues
 * User:Goldenglove/DBAUDIO - a sandbox whose content was copied into the article d&b audiotechnik
 * User:Goldenglove/AKGACOUSTICSTEMP - a sandbox whose content was copied into the article AKG Acoustics
 * User:Goldenglove/OurBand - an unused redirect to #7.
 * –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect and do history merges where needed I agree with Xeno. I myself left for a whole year and I'd be pissed if people deleted things in my userspace during that time just because I was inactive. History mergers are obviously not needed if he's the only editor during the time it was in his userspace, but either way, there's no valid reason to delete any of it. If these old drafts are particularly problematic, we can always redirect. Old version gone, but paper trail retained. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I go for histmerge/Keep/etc., just has Black Falcon suggested (nice one!); also for the reasons both Xeno and MacGyverMagic have put forward (i also am in and out of WP for months in a row since 5 years now, and would be rather sad if someone discontinued my 'work' just because I was out for a while.) - 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Black Falcon's recommendations as detailed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 30 March 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.