Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jravia

 __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.  TLSuda  (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jravia


Per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Per Articles for deletion/Jitendra ravia, there was an old AFC, two AFDs and a speedy in 2013. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as a fake article. The user page is apparently being used as it isn't suitable for article space.  -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Courtesy blank and lock: By all accounts this is an autobiography written by the account that this page "belongs" to. Because of this I'm sympathetic to a non-deletion outcome. So, I recommend courtesy-blanking + fully protecting the page + notifying the editor that he can find the old content in the revision history.  In any case, if the only options were "keep", "delete", or "soft delete" then I would go with "delete" with a strong preference for a "soft delete".   would either of you object to the solution I propose?  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We have plenty of autobiographies written by the account that the page belongs to. The general policy is deletion. It can always be restored but I don't want to have to keep watch to make sure it isn't restored (and this being the fifth recreation, evasion is not unlikely). It's not likely to be an article in its current state. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fail to see why a courtesy blanking would be appropriate. From what I can see, this editor is here solely for the purpose of self-promotion.  If he truly needs to get a hold of a copy, then he can ask for a WP:REFUND of his rejected AFC submission, althoiugh given this is an autobiography, I don't doubt he could easily whip up another article about himself without the need to see the deleted content. -- Whpq (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, since I'd rather see it deleted than see it stay in its current state, if it were to close now (vs. on the 12th) the closing admin could say it was unanimous and not be wrong. I still prefer the other options I recommended, but outright deletion is fine by me.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:07, 7 July 2014 (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.