Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nezerkhan

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 discussion was: keep. Ə XPLICIT 00:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nezerkhan[edit]

Abandoned user page. Last edit on wiki was 2012, elsewhere 2013 Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep We aren't deleting User:The Thing That Should Not Be or User:Gwickwire, just because they're inactive. 🐔 Chic dat ^ChickenDatabase 10:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User pages don't get deleted without a reason. They're useful for records.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "abandoned" is not a reason to delete a user page, whether it is 1 year or 40. No other reason has been given. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There may not be a reason to delete, but there isn't either a reason for a Speedy Keep. Speedy Keep is used too often to mean "I don't like this XFD". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, according to Wikipedia:Deletion process A "speedy keep" close is warranted when the nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection It seems to me that when the only argument advanced is clearly invalid according to policy, this applies. Would you disagree? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ah. Maybe I understand. All Keeps are Speedy Keeps, because we have decided that the nominator failed to make the case for deletion. So, "I don't like this XFD" is the nominator fails to advance an argument. I do see an argument for deletion. It simply is an argument that we, the community, disagree with. I also see a handwave that nearly all Keeps are Speedy Keeps because we don't like them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree with the "clearly invalid according to policy". I see it as the community reasonably deciding not to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I see your point. I would not say that "all keeps are speedy keeps". If the delete reason is, say, "promotional" that is valid, but others may not agree. But "abandoned user page" is simply not IMO ever valid, so i thought "speedy keep" appropriate. But keep or speedy keep doesn't make that much difference. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, editors come back after years. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No harm in it being kept, Could be deleted or blanked but even that seems sort of pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "huh?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 29 July 2020 (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.