Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WillowW/Universe

 __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  Deleted per G7/U1 - on 12:43, 9 January 2008 User:WillowW blanked the page stating in the edit summary, (no need for these at all!)   Skier Dude  ( talk  03:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User:WillowW/Universe
Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. User's last contribution to the page was in 2008. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  01:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 04:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete this way Editor has almost 30,000 edits, including recent edits. Odds are high the editor just simply forgot this page exists. Much better to sent a personal note to the editor, let them consdier whether request removal makes sense, or going back to work on it, or some other approach. Only if the editor ignores such a request would an MfD make sense. -- SPhilbrick  T  15:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This draft would not be helpful in working on universe because the draft is too outdated. In fact, if this draft were to be used to expand and improve universe, much information would be lost. Therefore, deleting the page is beneficial to the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete  WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." (mine emphasized) This userspace draft, which is a very outdated copy of universe, should be deleted because it violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I support 's solution. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. We do not delete user pages of established users unrequested where alternatives are available. The purpose of WP:FAKEARTICLE is to prevent content forks and long term archives of preferred versions. No such misuse has occurred here, and the user page has no backlinks. Per User_pages and User_pages, the user should have been approached before nominating for deletion, and asked to remedy the situation. The same guideline states "If the entire page is inappropriate, consider blanking it, or redirecting the subpage to the userpage, or to the most relevant existing mainspace or project space page."
 * In this case a redirect (either to the article or the user's main page) addresses the problem, leaving the edit history intact, with the subpage as a placeholder to remind the user that they had plans to edit the article. Geometry guy 19:52, 28 August 2010 (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.