Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digit9o0/Force the Movie

 __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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Digit9o0/Force the Movie


WP:STALEDRAFT from July 2011 created by a user that was blocked in September 2011. North America1000 06:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

* Keep. STALE is not a basis for deletion. 166.176.57.236 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Banned user 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:STALE is certainly a reason for deletion. Please read it, where it states, "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion". It's also a WP:FAKEARTICLE, and an article already exists at Force (2011 film). North America1000 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the onus is on you to substantiate, at least say something, about "no potential and problematic"? Without making a case, mention WP:STALE is not good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. No reason to delete.  If so-called "cleaning up" of userpages is worthwhile, more beneficial than the down side of interfering with others' workspace with the associated risk of alienation, then do it by some form of blanking or categorisation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that the user who created the page was blocked in September 2011 would be significantly more "alienating" than the deletion of this stale, unused user page that will never see any improvements. North America1000 00:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons for blocks, and some blocks are bad blocks. If you want to raise the issue of a block, you should say something more about it.  Was it a username block?  A 3R block?  Did the block have anything to do with e content of the page?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as useless and in the userspace of an indef'd user so unlikely to every be used. Its a fake article. Legacypac (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Editor was blocked for being a sockpuppet. If the editor returns on their master account and requests restoration, they can ask for it. Otherwise, I have no worries about "alienating" a sockpuppet blocked for sockpuppet who hasn't been here in years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 23 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.