Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Leana Risa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure :) ( arky ) 03:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Leana Risa
User page of a user whose only edits were to edit his/her user page and user talk. WP:NOT#BLOG. Prod contested. hbdragon88 05:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (Corrected link to BLOG, not WEBHOST)
- Speedy keep Webhost?!?! Her page consists entirely of one statement: "Welcome to my page!" I see absolutely no policy-related basis for this page to even be nominated.--12 Noon 05:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, the relevant polciy is WP:NOT#BLOG, not WEBHOST sa the nom originally stated. hbdragon88 06:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As I said when I removed the prod, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this userpage. Would you like to point out just which part violates WP:NOT? Is it "page"? Or is it the "to"? --UsaSatsui 07:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PROD also states this: pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia. hbdragon88 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Great. It was prodded, and the prod was contested. We're no longer in PROD-ville. Have something relevant? --UsaSatsui 15:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that once it's out of PROD, it can't be deleted by any other method? Isn't MFD the logical step after PROD? hbdragon88 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right -- UsaSatsui wasn't saying this page can't be put up for deletion, just that the general prod guidelines don't apply any more. The key thing about PRODs is that if contested, the PROD is invalid (hence the idea of uncontroversial deletions); editors have objected to this deletion, so we're out of PROD world. — xDanielx T/C 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I was trying to say that the MFD guidelines should apply, and there's really nothing that would warrant deletion under those guidelines. I mean, it's not a 4-page commentary on the person's life. It's just a hello. --UsaSatsui 05:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right -- UsaSatsui wasn't saying this page can't be put up for deletion, just that the general prod guidelines don't apply any more. The key thing about PRODs is that if contested, the PROD is invalid (hence the idea of uncontroversial deletions); editors have objected to this deletion, so we're out of PROD world. — xDanielx T/C 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that once it's out of PROD, it can't be deleted by any other method? Isn't MFD the logical step after PROD? hbdragon88 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've just been bold and deleted that statement. What is this, a punishment for "so you wanted to contribute to wikipedia, but you didn't? Naughty, naughty, now you get deleted, hah!"? I can't think of something more bitey. Anyhow, I see on her talk page that she was informed that an article (Alynia Phillips) had been proposed for speedy deletion (by you), and also of another one, of Living Dead 3D, [1]. So, it seems she did made some contributions to wikipedia after all.--victor falk 09:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Great. It was prodded, and the prod was contested. We're no longer in PROD-ville. Have something relevant? --UsaSatsui 15:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PROD also states this: pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia. hbdragon88 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There's no reason for deletion, and the nomination above seems to be incorrect. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The fact that the nominator doesn't know what kind of policy applies to the page shows that the perceived attempts at deletion might be knee-jerk at best, and WP:POINT at worst.--WaltCip 14:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, just a misunderstanding of the finer points of the procedure to delete userpages of inactive users. Leana Risa is one of only two (well, now three) userpage prods that were contested, and now I have learned that there is a distinction between a mere "user page without content" and "user page that has stuff that could be constructed as a webpage and a violation of WP:NOT." I hereby withdraw this nomination and will lurk back into the world of "prodding userpages that are acutal violations of WP:NOT." hbdragon88 23:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep WP:BITE. Hardly a violation of WP:NOT. Hut 8.5 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. WP:BITE. What part of this page violates WP:NOT? Bart133 (t) (c) 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:EM and WP:BITE. --Metropolitan90 05:09, 1 November 2007 (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.
