Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Netmouse/Wapsi Square

 __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 - "I'm using that" is generally a good answer to "Nobody is using this", and I see no evidence it doesn't apply here. Wily D 07:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Netmouse/Wapsi Square


WP:STALEDRAFT, untouched by anyone since 2010. Editor isn't likely to return to this, as they have only a handful of edits since January. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

SEE ALSO: Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square (3rd nomination)
 * Editor had a baby on August 10, 2010 and has made few edits ANYWHERE since the baby got big enough to walk. However, she does hope to resume her standing projects once the child is in school. In the meantime, please don't delete any of my personal pages. This is in my user space. I respectfully request that you leave it alone. Netmouse (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

* Speedy Keep - userspace page of active editor. I think a good rule of thumb for the future is that we wait at for at least a year of inactivity before we start MfD'ing an editor's userspace. The article should probably be tagged with userspace draft, though, to stop it showing up in search engines. --Surturz (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Not as clear cut as I first thought, need to look at it some more. --Surturz (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Replace with Inactive userpage blanked . No reason given to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an extremely old draft of the current article (which is at AfD for the third time at present). I would recommend that, so as to avoid histories being mangled, if Netmouse wants to pick this up and try to get it repromoted when he returns that the current userspace draft be deleted and the present article re-userfied (assuming that it gets deleted during the current AfD). It is not helpful to the encyclopedia for a user to be carrying around an absolutely ancient fork of an existing article in userspace, as inevitably it would have to be rebased before any improvements made there could be imported to the current page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a fork of something in mainspace? In that case, Delete and replace with a link to the users preferred version for reference. Forking to userspace is ok for very short-term testing, but should be strongly discouraged long term as it creates copyright-compliance hazards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It has a somewhat complicated history that I perhaps misrepresented. The article was userfied and then recreated, basically using the old content but with all the fancruft stripped out. I think the two will need to be history merged, as the current live article is plainly based on the user copy (some sections are verbatim copies). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A history merge would only be required if the mainspace article survived, is that right? --Surturz (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the current live page is still an evolution of what's in Netmouse's userspace; deleting those newer revisions entirely might not be the best idea. I think there should be a histmerge regardless of whether the page is kept, not least because it obviates the need for Netmouse to maintain a userspace fork anyway (as all of his changes will be in the live article's revision history). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Tag with Userspace draft - userspace owner wants to keep it. The userspace draft template includes NOINDEX so it is effectively deleted as far as everyone is concerned, except for NetMouse. --Surturz (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of this Userspace draft tag and will be happy to apply it to the article fork in my userspace. At the time I requested the page saved to my userspace, the page had been deleted and that was the only way to revive the material (esp in the history) that had been deleted.  At the time, it was my impression that material in userspace did not appear in search unless someone specifically asked it to.  Perhaps that has changed.  In any case, *please* don't simply replace it with the current version of the page, as that will emilinate the whole point of saving the old fork.  Netmouse (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the intention behind WP:FAKEARTICLE is to stop editors circumventing AfD by permanently hosting pages in userspace. For example, your wapsi square page currently turns up in a google search. Using a template with NOINDEX indicates that you are happy that Google won't index it, so it is clear that you do not intend the page to be a WP:FAKEARTICLE. You (Netmouse) have been an editor since 2006, have a clean block log, and a good contribution history, so I would strongly urge the other editors voting in MfD to assume good faith and vote to keep this userspace page. --Surturz (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Kept in good faith, user can blank or tag at their discretion. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2012 (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.