Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CFCF/sandbox/CNS

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 Redirected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFCF/sandbox/CNS

In line with WP:UP#COPIES, this is a copy of the article currently at Central nervous system but not edited since January 2014. This is an active editor who does also edit at the article and I don't see any evidence at Talk:Central nervous system that this has being discussed as a proposed overhaul draft of the piece. It seems unnecessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was the draft that created the article, and sure that policy says it should be deleted. I just don't see the point of patrolling my personal pages for things to delete. That guideline actually seems ridiculous and I oppose deletion on principle. CFCF 💌 📧 07:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually cleaning out Template:Cite isbn/978087893742 due to its deprecation at Template talk:Cite isbn which is a reason why we shouldn't have copies and variations of current articles as it makes more work if consensus changes on everything that's a part of each page. Still, the point is, why does that version exist? I don't see that it's some draft being proposed or edits being disputed. It looks very similar to the current article, just starting with the December 2013 version with your own changes since then. Policy is pretty clear that "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your comment. If this was the draft creating the article, then it should either be history merged or just made into a redirect to restore the article history. If you'll agree to that, I'll withdraw this request. But this was the draft that created the article but I presume you mean this edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about this page–but if I were gone from Wikipedia for say a month and had some of the userpages I use frequently deleted it would be a major pain in the ass. I find it better to let bots deprecate templates. CFCF 💌 📧 23:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines.

Can someone close this as a waste of time? CFCF 💌 📧 04:39, 2 October 2015 (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.