Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cheerleaderr


 * 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 debate was No consensus to delete. What might have become later an uncontroversial proposal, raised significant concerns as an unwarranted early nomination. Tikiwont (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cheerleaderr
wikipedia is not a webhost. Ironholds 23:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of random lists. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep editor just got here, and it's not even clear what the contents are meant to be. It would be far better if we actually talked to these editors before bringing their pages to MfD when they're only a few days old. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A few days have past and the user is yet to return, though waiting longer before MfDing would be appreciable. It's the user's single contribution, WP:NOT seems to apply here. Cena rium  (talk)  00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a borderline case, User:Cheergirlyy has been deleted (mfd) and it was, beyond any reasonable doubt, the same user and a very similar page. I don't think that it would be biting to delete as long as it's explained, I really don't know what is the purpose of this page. Now that it's MfD'd, I don't think that it would be harmful to delete, but not that harmful to keep either. Cena rium  (talk)  11:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Only started on June 5. The user may make contributions yet. Renominate a year from now if there's nothing further. The content is not helpful, but it isnt harmful either, and not all that extensive--looks like an article draft for what will probably not amount to much of an article, but he user should be encouraged to try other things, not have their page deleted. Totally wrong way to go about things. Not just BITE, but DEVOUR.   DGG (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and wait. This was MfD'd too soon. If page is deleted now the user will feel discouraged (and may be resentful?) when they come back. I've known editors who started using wikipedia by creating their userpage first and didn't come back for months (but the point is they did come back.) Also, that doesn't appear to be your average blog content; may be an attempt to carry out some fun Wiki-editing experiment. :) After all, we have no policies forbidding the use of userpage as a sandbox. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, a week has passed with no sign of user returning. --Stormie (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep until June 6, 2009, then renominate if necessary; harmless; user could become a contributor if not treated rudely. bd2412  T 21:11, 14 June 2008 (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.