Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OrphanBot

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. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:OrphanBot

Apparently inactive since June 13, 2009 Elvey (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? Its owner (Carnildo (talk · contribs)) is still active and I'm unaware that we delete user pages because of inactivity unless there's some specific policy violation like WP:FAKEARTICLE. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: No valid reason to delete given. --Carnildo (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inactivity is not a valid reason to delete user pages. Possibly we could add something noting the bot is inactive, though I don't see any reason at all to delete it. Hut 8.5 11:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Inactivity isn't a valid reason to delete!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to get rid of things just because no one is around to maintain them. By that logic we'd be deleting whole swaths of the userspace. Zell Faze (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Inactivity ain't a valid reason to delete user pages. StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 00:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Speedy Keep; inactivity was never, and perhaps will never be, a rationale for deletion (save for blatant FAKEARTICLE cases). hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exactly where are you supposed to store the information about the bot, if you delete this? Clearly if you come upon a bot edit, accessing its userpage would explain the bot more easily than sorting through the archives of bot approvals to see if it did or did not refer to the userpage for explaining things or not, and if it didn't explain at the approval process then needing to find the page you copied this info to. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2013 (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.