Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Consular

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 debate was Keep without prejudice against the blanking noted below (as an editorial action). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Consular

The user's only edit(s) were to this page... WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and all that. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Probably could've been done via CSD tag. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:50, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• I know of no policy that states a user can't go inactive. The page certainly looks reasonable, and not "Myspace-like" in any way. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote! I said that if his only edits were to a cosmetic page that's not an article, it needn't have a presence here. Any reason not to delete it? :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - it's been there since September 2005, in which time the "editor" has made no edits, except to upload a non-licensed image supposedly used in the German Wikipedia, and long since deleted. I think this can go. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per above, no contribs outside userspace and no contribs at all since 2005 [how could this have been here for 3 years without anyone noticing?!] ><RichardΩ612 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Editor has made no edits in mainspace, also has been inactive. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per obvious WP:NOT#WEBSPACE --Enric Naval (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong keep The userpage is nothing like a social networking site page. There are two boxes with latin phrases and a painting. That's certanly an alright userpage It definitly doesn't violate WP:NOT:

Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humourous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.

• He has no personal details whatsoever on his userpage, so it isn't an obvious breach. And if he had even a few edits, I'm sure this would be snowball kept, so why do things change when the user is inactive?--Phoenix-wiki 06:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

He has never worked on the encyclopedia since he only made ever made two edits to his user page (see his contribs), so he has no information relevant to his work, and anything on that page is automatically on breach of WP:NOT --Enric Naval (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, those two edits were in 2005. It is extremely unlikely that the editor will return after 3 years, so there is no need to keep the UP. ><RichardΩ612 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• This MfD is pointless. On the one hand, I won't cite WP:EM here, since it is abundantly clear that the user, who made two edits in 2005, is not going to come back and make constructive contributions. On the other hand, there's no actual point in deleting the page; deleted material stays in the archives anyway, so we aren't saving any server space. Time would be better spent working on the encyclopedia than discussing pages like this. (Amusingly, despite this MfD being pointless, I'm here participating in it instead of working; this may appear somewhat illogical, but I just wanted to make a point.) Walton^One 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nothing inappropriate about this user page; no reason to delete user pages just because their owners aren't active. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And no reason to keep it either. And this is his only "contribution". —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep Show me where it says that a user page should be deleted because the user isn't active, then I'll say delete. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• I was bold and blanked the page. Editors who have made little or no edits to the encyclopedia for several months can have their user pages prodded, so to halt this discussion I was bold and blanked the page with an edit summary stating that if the editor returns then he can by all means restore the content. Hopefully, we can now move on. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:14, 23 April 2008 (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.