Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anandita Pathak/Monastries of jains

 __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. The numerical consensus here is for keeping the article, which means keeping it in the same location it currently is in. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Anandita Pathak/Monastries of jains


The single contribution from this account. Not enough to build an article on. No applicable speedy. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blank and replace with Template:Userpage blanked, which would have been preferable to an MfD nom. This does no harm - why waste admin time, and MfD time and space? A2soup (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason to delete or even blank this has been given and I see none. DES (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This stuff spreads across the net via mirrors, even from draft and user space. With a single edit 4 years ago, when and where can we expect to see this info moved beyond what you see now? Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Prefer to blank, keeping her edit history for her reference, should she return. NB blanking causes the mirrors to blank.  Deletion causes the mirros to lock in the last version.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a FAKEARTICLE. Others are throwing the term around incorrectly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep not doing any harm Amisom (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE WP:STALEDRAFT. North America1000 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE. It does not remotely pretend to be a real article. Being a single contribution is not a reason for deletion. Remember the rules at the top of this page and don't delete user subpages purely for "cleanup." Fagles (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2016 (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.