Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blehblah/x
- 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 Delete Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A dieting blog, utterly unrelated to Wikipedia Beeblebrox (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#BLOG. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Juliancolton, Wikipedia is not a blog. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above. User:Blehblah/xx and User:Blehblah/ss could also bear some further scrutiny. MER-C 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It looks like a blog to me. Versus22 talk 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- comment I asked for an explanation of those other pages, and so far haven't gotten one. It seems clear to me that this person is using Wikipedia as a free web host to write drafts of things to be used elsewhere, all three pages should probably be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Preferably Blank or redirect to user's talk page, next time. Delete this time until an explanation is given. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand how blanking or redirecting is preferable to deletion. All they would have to do is click "undo" and this junk would be right back... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (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.