Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:J.m.hawthorne1/LNAPL Transmissivity

 __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  Keep and move to mainspace per Cunard's improvements. --RL0919 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:J.m.hawthorne1/LNAPL Transmissivity
STALEDRAFT hasn't been edited in userspace since October 2010. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  13:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Blank only.  New user's test of the article creation wizard.  A problem here could better be described as a problem with the article creation wizard.  The user has not been welcomed or approached in any way.  This is too bitey.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no need to blank, that's being overly cautious for the sake of being overly cautious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree that this is being too cautious about not being nice to a new editor who has done nothing wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's tiptoeing around and being too damn gentle because God forbid we should do anything about anything. WP:STALEDRAFT makes it pretty clear that this can be deleted without anyone losing sleep except for those who think that nothing should ever be deleted from userspace. I think in protest I shall make a userpage consisting of nothing but Time Cube in Rot13, then defend it to the death if it gets MFD'ed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was feeling sure-footed in my position. Yes, I know about "WP:STALEDRAFT".  It doesn't require deletion.  There is also User pages, 7.3.2 Handling inappropriate content; On others' user pages.  We agree this page shouldn't remain live.  It could be deleted.  However, I  think the one-edit user's edit should be kept undeleted because it was a reasonable test edit in userspace and there is no indication that the user was here for any undesirable purpose, such as promotion of unrelated interests.  We should work on the assumption that toe-dipping registered editors will return.  Many productive editors began with a toe-dip, and only became productive after a very long time.  You yourself are an example.  Was it not even slightly comforting, even welcoming, to see that we kept that one edit?  When  returns to find no welcome, no required note on his uncreated talk page, and no contribution history accessible, despite his remembering doing something, and the only reference to his name, should he search, being at a deletion discussion shouting staledraft, I consider this unnecessarily bitey.  And  for what benefit?  Will someone be confused by finding a test edit in a blanked page history?  Do you still believe that there is a WP:PERFORMANCE in marking certain things "deleted"?  Do you really believe that it is healthy for some few of the community to make it a habit to patrol others' userspace and to enforce their personal norms?  I don't.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to LNAPL transmissivity per my cleanup and addition of a source. A Google Books search indicates the topic is notable. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (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.