Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yungshawty

 __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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Yungshawty


While I've removed a flagrant BLP violation, the page remains laced with weird rants, at least one overt threat against the user's local transit system, an eccentric collection of userboxes -- but virtually nothing related to Wikipedia. The editor hasn't edited for two years, and hasn't edited outside their userspace for 5 years. The editor's comments about himself don't portray him in a favorable light, and the page could easily be an attack page by an impersonator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, but undelete in the unlikely event that user ever return, rebutt the impersonator notion, and request undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, agreeing with the caveat added by SmokeyJoe. North of Eden (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete but if kept, edit to remove additional BLP violations and add NOINDEX to the user page and talk page, since they are showing up on searches for rapper "Yung $hawty". A review of the entire page, including rants, including userboxes (some of which he created) and significant off-wiki content suggests entire page was created by same person.  Style and contents of writing suggests moderately-educated person trying to present as "gangsta" (if this makes any sense).  Concur that user hasn't edited in non-userspace areas for five years, and even then, edits were trivial.  WP:USER and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK are the controlling policies.   Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  08:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete because of the inappropriate rants. It seems that no one left him a message about the purpose of a userpage at the time.  A message on the talk page explaining that the page can be undeleted provided that specific material is removed right away may be appropriate. While there were only a few small mainspace edits, they were mostly good ones. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Courtesy blank and protect or, if it is deleted, replace the page with a mostly-blank or blank protected page so that search engines won't retain the previous version. Whether it is  or not won't be important if it's locked down.  If the page history is deleted it should be un-deleted if the original editor logs back in (assuming there are no serious concerns over impersonation, of course).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Replacing with Inactive userpage blanked does indeed have this advantage of causing external caches overwriting the old content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 31 July 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.