Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Austinleal

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 September 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 Delete; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If these users ever plan on returning, their user page being deleted will be the least of their worries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Austinleal

Valueless user page of a user who registered an account and only made one edit: creating his or her user page. The user has made no other contributions to the project in any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User has not made any edits in over a year and it appears to be a test, userpage is not helpful to the project. Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tip. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Userpage is not helpful to the project. -- Suntag (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is ridiculous. I fail to see why we need to bother to delete it. Userpages are not supposed to contain a value in itself. There is no present policy based reason to delete. The message we do not want to send to inactive users is: if you make only one edit, your edit will be deleted due to inactivity. We want to retain users, not delete their userpages. Synergy 03:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So someone registers an account, makes one test edit to their user page, and that should stay around forever? That seems rather silly, no? After a reasonable amount of time, isn't it appropriate to remove the test edits? We would if they were in any other namespace. And the only distinction between namespaces is an integer field in the database.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet these are not test edits to the article namespace, or any other namespace. Your argument is flimsy. It would be appropriate if it were for an actual reason like vandalism, attacks, or policy violations (none of which are the case; for all of the above MfDs). We generally give more leeway in userspace. Synergy 06:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Answer the question I asked, please. Are you saying that we should keep these pages indefinitely? Not trying to be rude, I just want to understand where you're coming from. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I figured you were being rhetorical. Yes, we should. We may never know when the users will come back, but as I said, its not what I would expect they would like to see upon returning. If you gave me an reason other than "valueless userpage" (which I have found numerous examples of these I might add) I'd be inclined to agree. Synergy 06:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In a philosophical sense, I imagine that it could be argued that these pages are acting as a free web host for users. One has to bear in mind that these users have made no other edits to the project whatsoever. They've merely created a user page and then gone off to other things. For us to act as a permanent pastebin for these users seems contrary to our goals. While you're obviously correct that contributors' user pages can have pretty much whatever they want (mine has pretty pictures from Commons), these people are not contributors. They have mastered registering an account and creating a user page and nothing more, typical of MySpace-esque behavior, in a way. These pages inflate database dumps, SQL query results, and Google results. While the content may not necessarily be offensive or harmful, it does nothing to further the goals of the project. And while I can understand our leniency with regard to actual contributors, for us to serve as a permanent web host / pastebin / whatever for these pages seems a bit silly to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If anyone gets any sense that WP:NOT#WEBHOST is being violated, then they can then blank or seek deletion. However, I see no suggestion that information for external uses is being held, and even less suggestion that information is being changed for external purposes, as would be expected with any webhost. These userpages are neither webhosts nor webarchives for anything outside the project. Trying to deal with them is much more a waste of effort than letting inactive users be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We should keep these pages, thier histories and user edits indefinately (100 years) unless there is an actual problem because we want to welcome all editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all: Worthless; per nom and per the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and have no more such nominations. The time, effort, and resources spent on them is more than they take to keep around indefinitely. They aren't worth the clean--up costs. According to the [nom| User talk:MZMcBride], these have been nominated as test pages to explore what to do about the 20,000 or so other pages of this sort. Ut's time to stop wasting not just computer resources, but human ones, on this. DGG (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We should delete all user pages of inactive users with little to no mainspace edits. VegaDark (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in principle (per nom, Tiptoety, etc.); user's only edit was more than one year ago. Also see comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And just NOINDEX all user pages. Any possible problems solved so we don't have to make sure 3,000,000 users are current with their membership fees. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.