Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Svianzon

 __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. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Svianzon


Delete as per WP:UP, WP:FAKEARTICLE, and WP:NOTRESUME. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Blank as quite sufficient here. User appears quite absent, and this way if she ever does reappear, she can not think "OMG they simply deleted me!" which happens a lot on such pages. Collect (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as a fake article. Editor has only ever edited this user page. -- Whpq (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yes, it's a fake article, and because it's on a main user page it is being indexed by search engines.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – A WP:FAKEARTICLE that's been in place since 12 July 2012‎. Wikipedia is not a web host. North America1000 12:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Blanking would have been sufficient.  Refer the user to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that User:Svianzon will ever see a reference to Alternative outlets, because they have not edited since 12 July 2012. The user is not active, and has only made a total of four edits (see User contrbutions). North America1000 14:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Much more likely the author will return to view the page, find it deleted, see the deletion log that points to this discussion, and will read this discussion.  She can then read Alternative outlets, which is very applicable to this page.  It is worthy content to put on the web, but not on this website.  You are very likely right that this user will never edit Wikipedia again, but she still deserves a little more respect, such as is provided on the page Alternative outlets.  As a general rule, I think that all deletions per WP:NOTWEBHOST not involving egregious intent to abuse, should include a link to Alternative outlets.  This is why I include it in my !vote, which is sufficient reference.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2015 (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.