Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ViperGurl

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Delete, but gently. I'll take care of it. Xoloz 16:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ViperGurl

Lots of personal information on a user page for a user that hasn't been active since August of 2005. I don't know if there's precedent for this, but it seems really inappropriate to allow such a biography to stand, especially without a user here to support it. Metros232 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Jesus, I don't know what to say. It seems kind of harsh to delete it. I mean, supposing she came back to edit in a few month's time, and bam! Her user page is gone. She's likely to be confused, upset, possibly angry. On the other hand, a lot of her edits are POV and/or nonsense. However, she mentions on her talk that she is new to this. I'd lean towards keep. Or maybe I'm just being soft-hearted. Sorry if I wasn't much help. ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 08:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but explain why on talk; undelete again if the account reactivates (and explain that on talk too). --ais523 09:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasoning above by ais523. SunStar Net 10:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. An explanation is essential, together with a link to the closing admin's talk page (not WP:DRV - that'll only scare her off), where she can, in the future, ask for undeletion. A deletion is the best course of action, as she may have forgotten about all the (potentially dangerous) personal information given out. Martinp23

Hmm, 'potentially dangerous'. Good thinking, Martinp23 (and the rest of you!). ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my thinking too. While technically she's well over 13 (she's probably at least 18 by now), I still wouldn't want all this information floating around without me knowing/remembering it exists. Metros232 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - some of the stuff there, if not posted by her, would be a reason for oversight to be used to remove it permanentely. As she added it (therefore the consent is taken for granted) oversight really doesn't need to be used, but total deletion gets rid of the potential infringement on privacy, whilst remaining undeleteable should she return. That's part of my reasoning :) Martinp23 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with explanation Per all above. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Leave page but delete contents - then if she returns, she can request from an admin to recover them, but we accommodate the privacy issues as well as the "WP is not myspace" issue. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (sorry if I'm being dense!) To clarify, do you support the deletion of the user page, on the userstanding that it can be undeleted at the user's request. Merely blanking the page will leave the information in the history, readily accessible, though deletion hides the history, whilst keeping the article recoverable. Again, sorry :) Martinp23 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My suggestion is that the page should still exist (i.e. it would be a bluelink rather than a redlink), but the contents would be deleted by an admin, or something along those lines. Probably with some sort of quick explanation as suggested by those above. Frankly, these nuances probably don't matter so much as the percentage of users who come back after a yearlong Wikibreak is probably pretty small, and if this person knew we were talking about her here she'd be surprised we even noticed her page. Newyorkbrad 00:27, 4 November 2006 (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.