Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Belsy


 * 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Belsy
Inappropriate use of user space. Copy-paste of a wiki article without proper attribution. Bringing here as speedy deletion was declined. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank as a test edit. No need to delete test edits.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the reason to keep them around indefinitely? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the reason to delete? :) Martinmsgj 09:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No page blanks perhaps? ~ User:Ameliorate!  (with the !) (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No page blanks is about articles, isn't it? We regularly blank things in the other namespaces. --Conti|✉ 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete article copy without history. User has never edited anything other than to make that edit. ~ User:Ameliorate!  (with the !) (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank Nothing otherwise objectionable about the page is noted. Collect (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for 6 months and leave a note on the talk page for now. Maybe this person intends to someday work on this. We don't know for sure that this is a test edit. On the one-year anniversary, blank it and leave another note. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Ameliorate, an 8 month old copy of the article is basically useless, and since they copied the rendered text rather than the wikitext, it was useless 8 months ago as well. Mr.Z-man 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as outdated and useless, although I wouldn't be opposed to leaving a polite note per A.B.--I just don't think it has to happen beforehand. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank and treat as test edit. Even if he/she is inactive currently, there's no reason to delete the page. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:UP: "You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively ... It is also good for experimenting with markup (that is, as a personal sandbox)." Looks to me that's what the user is doing - a personal sandbox. Who knows, they (or someone else deleted on the back of this precedent) may come back. I'd hate to have my userpage subject to censure by the community and I think there is no value to Wikipedia of going down this route. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regretful Delete Not often I'll !vote to delete a user page (outside attack, copyvio) - but single edit user in summer of 08? They are either gone, or under another name by now. — Ched ~  (yes?) 19:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jclemens. Additionally, pointless to keep as user has no other edits. - Fastily (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2009 (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.