Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Access Denied/userpage

 __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 Keep, Redirect. Keeping as it is within the user space criteria, basing on the discussion that this is a standard userpage, Redirecting to main userpage that includes information for banned users. Should the user ever become unbanned and return they can resume where they left off. — xaosflux  Talk 16:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Access Denied/userpage


User subpage of a blocked user that hasn't been edited in over two years, so it really doesn't need to hang around any longer.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 00:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's just like a main user page; it's doing no harm. Graham 87 05:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That policy does not apply here because it's just a standard user page. And re: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Access_Denied/userpage&diff=621098024&oldid=620728504 your edit summary accompanying this !vote], no space would be saved by deleting this page; in fact deleting it would make the page take up more space because more database rows would be created. Honestly, if Access Denied had put all this content on their main user page rather than on a transcluded subpage, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Graham 87 03:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The spirit of the policy is to keep people from trying to use Wikipedia as a webhost, a policy i wholeheartedly support. Unless you are privy to the technical details of wikipeidas server code, I suspect it may save a few bites to delete it eventually, but again, the point is to discourage this kind of behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But the user wasn't using Wikipedia as a web host; they were creating a user page in accordance with the user page guidelines. Re: the second part of your message, everyone is privy to the code of MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia, along with almost all the other tools that run on the Wikimedia servers. the likelihood of deleted text being completely erased from the Wikipedia database is vanishingly remote; see footnote B of Viewing and restoring deleted pages. Graham 87 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning Graham, but WP:NOTWEBHOST is cited quite frequently in deletion discussions of user subpages (of which this is). My reasoning for the nomination is why should this subpage of a blocked editor still be kept?    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 17:08, 14 August 2014 (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.