Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pardhu on wiki/Srikanth Addala

 __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 Delete - this is a close case, and if the author were to return and ask for this back for some reason we don't know then no issue with restoring. As for the discussion below, and an actual review of the content - there is nothing on this page that can be merged to the main article; the author did appear to be drafting content for inclusion and not working on a specific fork to merge or replace the main article with. — xaosflux  Talk 23:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Pardhu on wiki/Srikanth Addala


Four year old userspace draft already covered by Srikanth Addala. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. No advantage to deleting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh: I feel kind of bad about this one. This editor beat the mainspace article creator the punch by about 6 months, but isn't the mainspace article creator because he/she did the right thing and did a userspace draft. I'm not a fan of redirecting because it doesn't look like any content from here was ever integrated into the mainspace article. Blanking might be better. In essence this draft works out in the same way as a content fork in userspace... though it's not a very meaty one, and probably not a controversial one either. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you blank without comment or even with Template:Inactive userpage blanked, doesn't that mislead the editor into thinking that they can restore their version and continue? Wouldn't it be better if they came back, saw their talk page has a link to this discussion (same with the deletion rationale if they go find their user page again) and saw that there was a mainspace version created after the fact, and that they should go there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister   talk  19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SwisterTwister, you are routinely using these extremely weak sounding rationales. Could you explain your definition of "unlikely needed"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom, WP:UP applies. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Independent creations are not covered by WP:UP#COPIES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to think redundant versions should be automatically deleted? This is explicitly opposed by myself and Blueboar at User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring.  Maybe comment there?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2016 (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.