Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Torres20

 __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. Salvio giuliano 20:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Torres20

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Delete per WP:COPIES. User is inactive and it is not a draft currently in use. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with blanking, and reverted the blanking. It’s an old fork of the mainspace article with some edits.  This sort of sandboxing is ok only in short uses, and then should be deleted.  Any use now of the forked edited content creates a troublesome attribution hazard, and as it now should never be used for any purpose, it should be deleted.  Further, it should never have been created as a user’s main userpage, so that’s another problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Blank - The editor last edited back in 2011. I think courtesy blanking would have sufficed rather than going to MfD. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (blanked) It's a stale userpage draft (not a plausible draft due to staleness), and the user is essentially a non-contributor, so this a potential U5. Blanking suffices . /edit: switch to delete; I was not opposed to deletion per se but my belief was that this isn't something that merits a full MfD; WP:COPIES advises users who copy content to their articles to request deletion when they're done...and when they don't do so? MfD? There's a theoretical attribution hazard, so sure, why not... Best to treat such cases uniformly/—Alalch E. 14:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Editing content is not compatible with U5. Attribution hazards should be deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * U5 is technically applicable. The editor had an idea about contributing, explored this idea a little bit, in their userspace (and on a wrong page within their user space), but never got to it. So they're an almost-contributor, which is still a non-contributor. And this is a non-plausible draft. And unattributed copies are certainly not an example of User pages. —Alalch E. 22:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The user looks like he was attempting to contribute. That makes U5 inapplicable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:COPIES expressly suggests db-u1, but this discussion is helpful. I'm persuaded this good faith userpage draft/sandspace might be an attribution hazard and, as the author is not around to defend it, delete. BusterD (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this fake article, a type of non-permitted content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - No such reason on this user, it really WP:COPIES. CastJared (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:COPIES. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 05:58, 8 April 2023 (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.