Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Notaconsfearacy


 * 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 keep. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Notaconsfearacy
Not a Wikipedia editor page. Activity (contribs):
 * image (1 edit upload ) [deleted]
 * userpage (9 edits)
 * vandalism (1 edit)

(No edits since November 2007). — Athaenara ✉  22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. Blank, no need to delete really. // roux   22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - why are we deleting an inactive contributor's userpage. There is *nothing* on the userpage that is in contrivention of any policy or guideline.  This is not deletion worthy; not even blanking worthy in my opinion. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though only useful as an example of how userboxes can be abused . Actually fun in that sense, I suppose. No harm.  Single short page. Collect (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; despite my abject loathing of userboxes of all shapes and sizes we cannot set a "limit" on how many are/are not acceptable; to do so would lead to nitpicking and arguments in later MfDs (well you said 235 is the limit, this guy has 236, lets vote keep) massively exaggerated I know . Ironholds (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither the nominator nor anyone else has made mention of the number of userboxes as a reason for deletion. You seem to have missed the point, which is that this is a vandalism-only account.  It's one edit to article space, made the year before last, has been vandalism, and it has made zero other contributions to the project in the intervening 14 months.  Should Wikipedia host this user page for a vandal for free in perpetuity? Uncle G (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't any reason to delete it, though. It isn't causing any harm or violating WP:UP; the only reason I mentioned the number of userboxes is I really can't think of anything else one could have a problem with. Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or blank. WP:NOT policy does apply, and I don't see any rationale here for assuming otherwise.  — Athaenara  ✉  22:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which particular part of the above noted policy section is this page in violation of? There are 4 "things" specifically detailed, and apart of a very weak claim of using the userpage as a personal webpage I can not see where the policy applies. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep it is just a userpage, does not violate any policies. Inactive users can have pages. Users that only ever make a userpage can have a page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank. Userpage is out of proportion with respect to useful contributions.  No need nor advantage to delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless as userpages go. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Flooding with boxes shows no harm Lets  drink Tea 02:25, 25 February 2009 (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.