Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jonwurl/LafayetteBunnellDraft

 __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  Moved to User:LaurentianShield/sandbox/LafayetteBunnellDraft. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jonwurl/LafayetteBunnellDraft


Stale userspace draft of Lafayette Bunnell. Not connected with that article's history at all. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As per JohnCD, a lot of good content is in the draft. It was forked 23:43, 23 October 2012‎ from Lafayette Bunnell, then a very brief article, and improved considerably over the next few weeks, then abandoned.  Much later, independently, the mainspace article was improved.  Suggest proposing a merge at Talk:Lafayette Bunnell.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

LaurentianShield (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for now, as it is considerably fuller than the mainspace article, and seems well-referenced; see whether WikiProject Military History are interested in doing a merge. JohnCD (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's also User:Jonwurl/sandbox which is a single edit copy and paste version of this version for whatever reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of these reasons does this article violate?
 * 1) Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
 * 2) Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * 3) Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * 4) Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * 5) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * 6) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * 7) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * 8) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * 9) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * 10) Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * 11) Categories representing overcategorization
 * 12) Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy
 * 13) Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
 * 14) Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
 * See WP:UP. There exists a mainspace article, a duplicate isn't needed. I'll agree that it could be merged (not kept as is). Also, it's not obvious that you changed usernames so I presumed it was just an abandoned article based on the edit history of the article creator. Generally people move their drafts as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know the specific concern. However, the main space article needs a lot of updates and it only makes sense to do it as a coherent whole.  I have done this before -- worked on a major update, and then just pasted the whole thing in.  Too many articles have incremental improvements and then sound like a mish mash.  Isn't this what user space is for, works in progress?  I started this a long time ago, and haven't gotten around to finishing it, and don't know when I will to be honest.  If there is some problem with this approach, I am not aware of what that is.  I can certainly move it from my old user name to the one I use now.  I can even keep it under my sandbox if that makes things clearer, but as I said I have always been under the impression that user space can be used for such things. LaurentianShield (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This page was last edited in November 2014 but really it was last worked on in 2012. User:Jonwurl last edited in October 2013. At least we agree on moving it to the current username, it isn't obvious that there was a name change. There exists a current article. Why not merge it into the current article after all these years? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, I copied the WIP to my sandbox, and put a "user draft" tag on it. I was the originator under a different user name.  I don't know if it is ready to be merged yet.  LaurentianShield (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The copy and pasting you keep doing is not kosher. See Copying within Wikipedia. The issue is that "Userspace ... should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." Why wouldn't it be ready to be merged? It's been almost three years since it was last edited while the mainspace article has continued on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I don't have time right now to deal with this, and it violates common sense to make an issue out of it. It's a draft.  I definitely don't read the "copy" policy the way you are -- the obvious spirit and intent is to not use Wikipedia as an alternate hosting service, not for people like me who are editing in good faith.  What else could the "sandbox" possibly be for? `LaurentianShield (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Ricky81682, that copying, as in forking, is very undesirable. If not outright forbidden, is it discouraged, and "not kocher" reflects this about right.  Most people who copy large slabs of material are sloppy in maintaining the attribution history.  Does User:LaurentianShield/sandbox/LafayetteBunnellDraft contain the recommended, or minimum, attribution information?  Further, copying material on the path to deletion is to perform an end run around the deletion process, it is WP:Gameing the system.  If you have any justifiable reason to keep a copy of the material in your userspace, then there is justification to oppose its deletion, and for you to either work on it where it is, to properly move it to your userspace, or to move it somewhere else.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2015 (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.