Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TmRNA/tmRNA

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. WP:FAKEARTICLE applies and no other applicable guidelines or policies have been cited. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TmRNA/tmRNA

This usepage hasn't beed edited for more than one year. It is absolutly redundant to the article tmRNA and thus should be deleted. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in a user's sandbox area. Why on earth would you want to delete it?--Paul (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why should be keep old stuff and duplicates, respectively? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Diskspace is cheap. The user may want to pick this up again and do a bit more work at a later date (doubtful I admit and they'd be better of starting with a copy from tmRNA). I'm just a bit uncomfortable with deleting articles from people's userspace without a very good reason eg. copyright infringement, libelous comments etc. Redundancy and age don't seem to be particularly convincing reasons. --Paul (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears valid use within userspace. And appears to have been used in working on an article as recently as December. Not really worth a big deletion discussion to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is wrong, the last edit was in April, 2009! It may have been used once ago, but now it is simply obsolete, or can you define a special reason to keep it? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We delete things from user space when there is a compelling reason to delete it, not in the absence of "a special reason to keep it". Martinp (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the user's last edit was in September 2009, so it's a fair bet they've left Wikipedia and won't be coming back to work on this. We shouldn't keep it around in userspace indefinitely. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE which 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. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." (mine emphasized)
The compelling reason for deletion is that the content in the userspace draft is now outdated. Further use of the userspace draft for revision and then copying those changes to tmRNA would lead to loss of the recent changes to the article. To prevent that from occurring, this page is best deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.