Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alice woods

 __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 Speedied. Clearly an attack page; it is regretable that it lasted this long. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Alice woods


This page looks like it was created in bad faith. I considered speedy-ing this as an attack page, but I don't think it falls squarely in the criterion, because a) the original edit was not necessarily an attack, and b) it was made by the owner of the account. However, User:Alice woods has only made one edit (to make this page) and the subsequent IP edit makes me suspect the page was created with intent to disparage someone who is not the owner of this account. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blanked the page as a courtesy - this is how I first found it. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not intended to contribute to the project. Not really an attack, maybe just testing.  As the user is inactive, blanking would have sufficed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanking is enough, but I expect they will not miss it if deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What purpose would blanking serve here? It is not desirable that this page's history be available in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanking, on discovery, means that there is no need to call for an MfD debate. This is much like graffiti that can be wiped clean with a few seconds effort.  We don't rev-delete every instance of vandalism in an article history, and this userpage is much less important than any article.  It is not worth the attention of MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The counterargument, and one I've made with you repeatedly, is that once someone has actually jumped through all the hoops which involve listing something at MfD, it is exactly as much effort to close as a delete as it would be close as a page blank. The lightweight solution is "good enough", but when "the right thing" is no more effort than the lightweight solution we should choose it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My !vote above is for "Delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Serves me right for being snippy. Anyway, that's still my rationale, even if I was wrong to imply you weren't for deletion in this case. Apologies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:27, 3 November 2011 (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.