Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Swineposit

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: Speedily Deleted. Given EdChem's point below, that the user Shiesmine clearly requested a deletion of the page, before blanking it, and is now blocked, it seems proper to speedily delete it. — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swineposit

Qualifies for deletion per WP:USERPAGE. Shiesmine (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, referring to WP:USERPAGE Shiesmine (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, user was blocked last year Shiesmine (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an article, unacceptable Shiesmine (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it fails with user guidelines Shiesmine (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know why is on there, because maybe it was created by the blocked user itself Shiesmine (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Because why it was blocked by administrator 86.0.244.52 (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it does not belong there 86.0.244.52 (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it should not be on there, thanks 86.0.244.52 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering that the page is blank anyway, I don't understand why the nom is making such an fuss. I've taken the liberty of striking the disruptive, duplicate !votes above, and I will bring this to ANI if the nom reverts my striking. Lepricavark (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it will not 86.0.244.52 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's an blanked page 86.0.244.52 (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unacceptable 86.0.244.52 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking above duplicate disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please Shiesmine (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it's blocked Shiesmine (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: The editor whose user page this is request it be deleted and then blanked the page four minutes later. If the information on the user page was accurate, it contained full name and other information on a then 13 year old girl. She may not have understood that blanking would remove the deletion request. She is indefinitely blocked, so the possibility that the above posts from a user that could be a typo of "she is mine" are her trying to remove something that would have been deleted routinely had the request been left alone seems significant to me. It's a blank user page of an indeffed account, of no ongoing value to the project, so let's remove it as a user request or for privacy reasons. EdChem (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2017 (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.