Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ja'ka Winka

 __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. Admins closing deletion discussions are supposed to gauge consensus and not to merely count heads. In this case, though there are editors arguing this page should be kept, their rationales are incredibly weak and, above all, contain no reference to policy; delete !voters, on the contrary, correctly quote policy and, as such, their !votes carry more weight. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ja'ka Winka


Per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless user page with only two sentences of text (and a partially broken infobox). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't know that the editor refers to themselves or if it is a joke page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep-This is far from being excessive for a user page. Nothing wrong here. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Argh. Sole contributions, two years old, and if the information is accurate the user is a minor. I will never understand the mentality of editors who would turn up at MfD to oppose the deletion of stuff like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone born April 8, 1994, as the user claims to be, would be 18 years old by now. If this userpage had been nominated for deletion two months ago when the user was still a minor, I probably wouldn't have turned up to recommend "keep". But now that the user is an adult, things are different. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're fine with indefinitely keeping the vanity pages of people who have never edited the encyclopedia itself so long as they're a couple of months above the general age of responsibility? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What would be gained by deleting it? Its not as though it would free up disc space or any such thing. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall we encourage every minor in the world to create such a vanity page, safe in the knowledge that some brave warrior will defend its existence for the sake of winning an argument? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST is not a particularly difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, one would think. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 25 May 2012 (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.