Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cats & dogs forever/Sandbox/Secret page

 __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  delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Cats & dogs forever/Sandbox/Secret page
Over half this user's edits are to user pages (this and User:Cats & dogs forever; the user has 16 edits in the User: namespace, 4 in the article namespace, and 7 in other namespaces (User talk: and a WikiPrioject page). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This user has far too few edits to let them keep this.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 03:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP which states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "[g]ames, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community, and where the games involve people who are not active participants in the project such pages are routinely deleted at MfD." Cunard (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cunard, may I please ask you to stop quoting that. I find it unnecessary in cases where deletion is likely uncontroversial.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 09:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting the relevant guideline is not unacceptable. It is helpful for those who do not want to click on the links to read what they say. Cunard (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and barnstar inflation. MER-C 07:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - User is not here to build an encyclopedia. Avic ennasis  @ 18:02, 17 Av 5770 / 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOT, and WP:UP. User hasn't edited in two years, and only a couple of edits are constructive, therefore user doesn't deserve leeway given to productive editors. — Becksguy (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2010 (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.