Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pewdie12/PewDiePie

 __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 - there's an argument for deletion "This has no value", and no real argument for keeping - "It's not necessary to delete it" isn't an argument for keeping. An argument for upweighting a weak keep argument, sure. Might even fall under WP:CSD. Wily D 09:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Pewdie12/PewDiePie


Blank AFC submission. PewDiePie is salted. User name suggests COI. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is no problem with a user having a copy of a deleted article (or one with a similar name) in their own userspace to work on. It was only created in December 2012, so it hasn't even been more than two months yet. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A skeleton created by a UAA candidate on a subject whose article is salted, abandoned the day it was created, and left for two months. Yeah, there's ample reason to assume someone will be along promptly to turn this into an encyclopedia-worthy article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While I'm assuming your comments weren't intended to be snarky, that's how they are coming across. If you disagree with me, you are welcome to !vote as well. If the page had existed for a longer period of time, I'd be fine with deleting it,but we need to make sure the editor has time to actually do something with it. He may have gotten busy in real life, as sometimes happens to most of us. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 08:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's two section headings and an example link. I've already spent more time on this MfD than was spent on that creation. This is what it looks like when a deleted article is worked on in userspace. If ever this subject returns to mainspace, it'll be that work which forms the basis of it, rather than this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Can't see any reason why this should be kept. -- Klein zach  03:38, 15 February 2013 (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.