Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Universal Hero/Tamil actresses

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 (the article content) - moved the list to user sandbox with note. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Universal Hero/Tamil actresses

Draft from 2008 already covered by Shriya Saran. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ignore or redirect. Is of no problem in userspace. Was a valid and proper use of userspace. User is a 30K+ edits productive user, it is rude to imply that they did not manage their userspace responsibly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was never a valid use. The mainspace version was created in 2006. If I nominated this the day it was created, it should have been deleted under WP:UP#COPIES. Seven years later, it's still an inappropriate use. And what difference does it make that the editor was productive years ago? They haven't been here since 2011. If this was the editor's only edit, it would still the same problem as if this was Jimbo himself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shriya Saran mainspace page 17:19, 22 August 2008 does not look like User:Universal Hero/Tamil actresses 13:53, 24 August 2008. Flagrant disregard to the details. It is not a "copy". WP:UP#COPIES does not apply. ignore or redirect is the solution to this non-problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator's blatant lying about the details deserves sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.141 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blank the section The draft portion of this page contains text lifted directly from this revision of Kirsten Dunst, evidently intending to be used as a framework for rewriting the early life section of Shriya Saran. It's not a UP copy in the strictest sense, so blanking the offending section is probably fine. It looks like this editor was keeping a list of Tamil actresses in his or her userspace... like as a minor watchlist? See the initial revisions of the page and edit summary. I think that part of it is fine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blank the section as per Mendaliv. Their listing of actresses is obviously fine. The duplicated content is not. ~ Rob^Talk 22:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete frankly as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as super stale draft and copy of existing article (OK, not in content but in topic, and editor should be encouraged to edit mainspace article). We don't need to keep super old stuff indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 8 April 2016 (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.