Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ryanyesterday/Chris Charleston

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 14:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ryanyesterday/Chris Charleston

 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable student. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete More like non-notable potential actor and thespian. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just blank. Unquestionably has issues, but is fair newcomer drafting in userspace, if blanked.  We would like this editor to return and feel welcome to edit some more.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that the result of this discussion will change whether an editors who hasn't been here since February 2013 will return? Their only major edit was to create another A7 violating page at Alexander Ross Armstrong which was promptly deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Am arguing that deletion of their contribution history makes the user less likely to feel welcome if they return. This edit seems to contradict your last statement.  People updating a page is something explicitly desired.  Granted, the editor was not an example of a prolific contributor, whoever it is not a good idea to kick volunteers on passing.  In the future, it is possibly that the most valuable volunteers will be people who dabbled early in their life.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Blank and apply userpage blanked per SmokeyJoe. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Userspace or draftspace shouldn't be used as an excuse to keep stale stuff indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The nom misleadingly implies that the subject is a child. The subject is an adult, with plausible claims of notability from their adult life.  Multiple RfCs show that a wider consensus agrees that "stale" is not a reason for deletion and that there are no time limits.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2016 (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.