Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nickelodeonfan2007


 * 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 debate was to speedy close the debate. It's clear that the user page was not in violation of the user page policy, and that the user actually contributed to the encyclopedia, and the nominator didn't really give much of a rationale for deletion apart from "nonsense" – the only nonsense on the page was the first revision which read "I RULE!" and then it was blanked. No point of keeping this debate open.  Spebi  21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Nickelodeonfan2007
Nonsense contextually (not that the user isn't the best ), non-readable even if you didn't think it was nonsense. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep When did we start deleting userpages? &mdash; trey  (wiki) 17:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Look at the MfD log. Right below this one. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, that was deleted for being an attack page which wasn't created by the user in question. Completely different situation. WaltonOne 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per my reasoning in the essay Editors matter and per the established policy WP:BITE. The user in question is an active editor, as shown by his talk page and contribution history. His userpage is not in any way inappropriate - it isn't offensive, attacking other editors, advertising, campaigning for a controversial position, or in any other way abusing userspace. It's little more than a placeholder, and this is perfectly legitimate. With all due respect to the nominator, this nomination has no foundation in policy or guideline and runs contrary to common sense. Deletion will achieve precisely nothing, other than possibly driving the user away. I also propose that we speedy close this nomination, on the grounds that keeping it open also runs the risk of driving the user away. WaltonOne 18:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep--Looktothis (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep user has contributed to the encyclopedia; the userpage doesn't violate any guidelines. There is no reason whatsoever to delete. Acalamari 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A bit stupid, perhaps, but doesn't break any policies. I also think this should be speedy closed; I suggest that the next person along who feels the same should close the debate if the tone hasn't changed by then. --kingboyk (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (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.