Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jefferson Anderson/Reincarnating




 * 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   No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jefferson Anderson/Reincarnating
Housekeeping deletion, mostly. This duplicates exactly the information on the main user page of a long inactive user account. MSJapan (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Advise User:MSJapan to read Transclusion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete. Although transcluding a user subpage into a user page is not uncommon, I see little need for this to take place when both the user page and user talk page contain only the transclusion and the user account is permanently inactive. –Black Falcon (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it can be a good idea to organise a user page and user talk page this way, although the use here is trivial. On the other hand, this discussion uses for more resources than the transcluded page and its targets ever would, and so I prefer to discourage these unprofitable nominations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on both points, and I readily admit that my comment applies to a limited number of cases only (where the user account is permanently inactive). That being said, this is not the type of page about which I could have strong feelings, so I have no objection to the page being kept. –Black Falcon (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Violates no policies I can find. Absent a reason for deletion, the remaining choice is Keep. Collect (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so not every action needs to be codified into a policy. A well-reasoned deletion argument is not invalid merely because it does not include a restatement of some portion of a policy. (And please note that my comment is not about this particular page or discussion, but rather about the use of "Violates no policies I can find" as a general argument.) –Black Falcon (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The practice at MfD is to look at the weight of any reasons given for deletion. The reason here is "duplication" as "long inactive user" has not found favor as a reason for deletion per se.  The reason it is a duplicate is, wooha, that it is a transclusion. Using very few bytes.  Were the transclusion different, I would wiash to see the developers for WP.  Therefore, that it is a "duplicate" is rather obvious.   As I found no policy barring such a trivial transclusion, I consider that it, in all likelihood, does not violate any policy.  Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the existence of this page does not violate any policy and even the nominator has not suggested that. I was trying to question the quality of the argument "does not violate any policy" in general, not necessarily as applied to this particular user subpage. Thank you, however, for offering a clarification of your comment. Cheers, –Black Falcon (talk) 22:22, 22 January 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.