Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VI Music

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 kept — Werdna talk 06:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:VI Music

I'm really not sure what to make of this userpage. It's almost like a one-line article in userspace, and coincidentally it is the user's only edit in all of the English Wikipedia. I'm a bit skeptical as to whether it fails WP:UP#NOT, but I can't be sure. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep I don't want to bite this new user. I thought incorrectly that this was a very old edit. Delete This is most probably a good faith attempt by a new user to create an article. Unfortunately, the only reference I could find is the google cache of an entry on a list of copyrights[1], so I assume that this is the name of a non-notable primer. If some source is found for this, it should be one line inside Braille_music. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and blank User's only edit was only a couple of weeks ago, so this might be too soon to jump to conclusions. -- Ned Scott 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BITE. It's not even clear that what this is describing is a specific commercial product. It can't be very promotional if we can't even figure out whether this is being sold by anyone. If the editor comes back and starts turning this page into an advertisement, we can deal with that when it actually happens. Also, no attempt has been made to discuss the possible problem with the editor on their user talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That's probably because the editor hasn't edited in a few weeks... and that's the editor's only edit. But this is why I brought it here, for consideration. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 04:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I realize that the editor does not seem to be active since their first edit (which was only 17 days ago), but there isn't even a notice on their user talk page that their user page is up for deletion -- much less a friendlier message requesting them to clarify whether their user page is intended to be an article or an advertisement or something else. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• DeleteWhile it might have been good faith, the user should've used the sandbox for it. If the user isn't a productive member of Wikipedia society, I think there's no reason to keep the page.--LAAFan 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Editors often use their own userspace as a form of personal sandbox. I think I have about 8 pages of them myself. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 25 May 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.