Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vanished user 90345uifj983j4toi234k/World War I

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. No history to preserve, vanished user, should they ever return they can easily pick this back up from the main article history. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC) — xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanished user 90345uifj983j4toi234k/World War I

Userspace draft from 2006 on World War I for a now-vanished user. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely needed now. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World War I - Redirection is less potentially disruptive and aggravating for the user than deletion and more clearly sends the message that the user should work on the mainspace version, not their userspace copy. Also, all things being equal, not deleting saves admin time. "Unlikely needed" is not and has never been a reason to delete drafts, much less drafts in someone's userspace. A2soup (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User not only hasn't edited in nine years but the account was vanished, meaning that the account typically has their password scrambled. This is the type of editor least likely to return. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need fake articles and copies around. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mainspace article. This is the standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace. Please read the instructions at the top of the "Miscellany for deletion" page (the page you are looking at now): "Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." And under WP:STALE, stale drafts should only be deleted if "problematic even if blanked," which is not true here.Fagles (talk) 13:21, 6 March 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.