Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Glightman/The Hypnotic Eye

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Glightman/The Hypnotic Eye


Abandoned draft from 2012 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not clearly non-notable. Replace with Inactive userpage blanked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable band .... Probably wouldn't survive a week in articlespace due to notability issues, Pointless blanking when you can just outright delete it ... If the user wants to rework on it they can go to WP:UNDELETE. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the user wants it and can go to WP:UNDELETE, that is how blanking works. It should only be deleted if undeletion should be refused.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the point in blanking something that won't ever be edited again ? .... It may aswell be deleted. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Point is that TPH could have done it himself, without MfD. yeah, delete now that we are here. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
 * Well TBH and myself believe deletion is the preferred option over blanking so yeah it should be deleted, If the editor was around then I'd agree blanking would be better however he isn't so there's absolutely no point in blanking when it can be deleted..... – Davey 2010 Talk 03:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Logically, the opposite would be true. Looking at page views, this nomination has caused more page views that there were for the past year.  If the editor was around, the editor could participate in this discussion, and it would have have educational value.  But he is not, and so he is not about to unblank.  There's absolutely no point in deleting when it can be blanked, permanently, without the cost of nine people reading the page to double (nonuple!) check the proposal to delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The increase pageviews indicates that more people than just the creator and the person who looked at the page have evaluated it which is a good thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 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.