Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shaun henderson

 __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. The page blatantly violates WP:NOTADVERTISING (and WP:SPAM, which could technically be considered part of of NOTADVERTISING). As those who didn't specifically !voted "delete" specifically stated they had no objection to actual deletion, and taking into account the tone and opinions expressed in the discussion, it is clear this page shouldn't exist per the discussion here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 04:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Shaun henderson


WP:FAKEARTICLE Magioladitis (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit to replace with: " was registered on Wikipedia on 4 July 2009 at 01:14, and made some userspace edits that day, available in the history of this page." Old promotional pages of breif SPA accounts are best blanked or drastically cut back like this on discovery. No need to bring them to MfD.  No objection to "delete" now that we are here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe Solution - with no no prejudice against deletion. Achowat (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User made exactly four contributions to our encyclopedia, three years ago, all of which were this fake bio. Preserving this in any capacity is absurd. I'd argue that "no need to bring them to MfD" in this case is more along the lines of "an out-of-process speedy would waste less time than responding to silly arguments to preserve them". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * G11 would be defensible. But what is the imperative to do anything beyond blanking? It's not as if anyone would ever look into the history, let alone revert to the previous content. Do you not think that non-admins should be encouraged to deal with useless old stuff without feeling the need to create fanfare? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Flipping that on its head, what is the imperative to repeatedly oppose or otherwise complicate what would otherwise be utterly uncontroversial deletions? If you know that deletion would be defensible, deletion has been proposed, and nobody has said otherwise, then why waste people's time stymieing that? (another five minutes of my life gone.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * i didn't and don't oppose. Why say more? Because I want to discourage these useless nominations. Just blank them on discovery and move on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're disrupting them to make a point. We typically discourage that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Educating infrequent participants in this process of more efficient alternatives in not disruption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is on individual MfDs. Feel free to contact these editors on their talk pages. That would be the best of both worlds IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're working with a pretty delicate definition of "disruption" there. I'm writing for a wider audience than just one nominator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice and in the most horrific and yet expedient manner possible - Pardon the hyperbole, but this is totally against the premises and policies of the encyclopedia, per WP:NOT. Why this is still here after three-plus weeks, not to mention three-plus years is beyond me.  We don't need to be documenting the activities of users for posterity, much less the non-contributory ones.  Heck, I had a known WP:LTA user have his username usurped just to make somebody's global login actually global, and this was 18 months of constant vandalism followed by a community block.  So why should this particular non-contributor, at such a grossly lower level, have his personal page maintained?  Kill this nonsense and get it out of here.MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (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.