- 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 delete. This userspace essay, no matter where it has been moved, appears to violate a number of our policies regarding disruptive editing and page creations by banned users. The notability of the subject has been determined a large number of times previously (see John Bambenek, John C. Bambenek, John C. A. Bambenek, and John C.A. Bambenek). There is also the potential for issues related to biographies of living people. The voting here (after about a day and a half) is strongly leaning toward delete, as well. The sum of the issues here weighs strongly against allowing this debate to run for a full seven days, so I'm closing this early. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back/JohnBambenek
This subpage was made for the intent to produce an article on perennially non-notable John Bambenek ( John C. Bambenek, John C. A. Bambenek, John C.A. Bambenek, etc.), usually by the article subject, the effectively banned JohnBambenek ( talk · contribs) (as in no administrator in his or her right mind would decide to unilaterally unblock the account). This page has no use at all on Wikipedia, and if it is proven that the author CharlesJohnson22 ( talk · contribs) is actually a sockpuppet (I do not have access to the page histories in order to pull any particular names up, but the history of attempts to get the article deleted, undeleted etc. are found here; oh look categories Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JohnBambenek, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JohnBambenek), then the page should likely be deleted per WP:CSD#G5, the creation of a banned user.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey everybody! I
moved the page from CharlesJohnson22's user space to my own. Since Mr. Johnson is banned, he will not be able to improve the article. I, on the other hand, have extensive encylopedia-building experience and intend to find better sources and, ultimately, to bring the article up to featured status.--
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (
talk)
11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Moving the page is not going to keep this deletion discussion from occuring.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete! This is unhelpful towards building an encyclopedia. Miami33139 ( talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I said some very bad things on the talk page, and I wish for the talk page to be deleted so no one can read the bad things that I said.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 09:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Nick-D ( talk) 09:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The task of MfD is not to erase people who are no longer around. As fopr the blocking of the socks, it is unclear whether current procedures would have resulted in the same "effectively banned" result (no actual discussions appear extant). As I did not find any ruling "banning" the user, it appears the criterion is not applicable. Unless of course "block" and "ban" are synonymous here. As for "unhelpful" - that is not a specific reason for deletion at MfD, nor is "I said bad things."
Collect (
talk)
11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Everything on Wikipedia needs to be about furthering the goals of the Wikipedia project. So yes, unhelpful to the goals of the project is a reason for deletion. Miami33139 ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Author has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user (which no administrator will unblock) JohnBambenek. And this page has no use for the encyclopedia. No one can improve an article with it, and the only reason it was brought here is because the user is not community banned but indefinitely blocked and because it was not considered spam. A political (of or relating to policy) keep is of no use, just because you think the other reasons are not viable MFD rationales.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which might be valid if the person had zero notability. As it is, there are now numerous RS sources )ABC, CBS, usw.) quoting the person dating after 2006. I would not care if he were Hitler incarnate, notability is the sole criterion, and I fear that anger at the user may result in harming the inclusion of a notable person in the encyclopedia, which is a valid reason to retain the page.
WP:CSD refers, indeed, to banned users -- with a link to a list of them. BTW, it the person is notable, by definition this could be used to improve the article.
Collect (
talk)
12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- The person indeed has zero notability. The only references in the possible article are to passing mentions of the man's name (or a passing appearance in the video) where he was quoted. I do not see any mentions of ABC or CBS. The only publications where the man has been given any sort of major coverage are online blogs defaming him and various non-reliable sources. And this "anger" stems from the fact that all he has ever done on Wikipedia is write about himself so an article can be made.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- The references are well after 2006, and are readily found through googlenews, etc. In quantity now. He may be a horrid twerp, but assertion that because he was not notable in 2006 that he is not notable now is a weak one.
Collect (
talk)
16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome to move this article to your own userspace to work on it if you think it has future viability. You are welcome to put the article in the main project if you think it would survive AfD. This user doesn't need this subpage anymore and deletion is an appropriate outcome as it exists now. Miami33139 ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:DRV is over there, and you can make your case there. -- Calton | Talk 03:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The references are well after 2006, and are readily found through googlenews, etc. In quantity now. He may be a horrid twerp, but assertion that because he was not notable in 2006 that he is not notable now is a weak one.
Collect (
talk)
16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which might be valid if the person had zero notability. As it is, there are now numerous RS sources )ABC, CBS, usw.) quoting the person dating after 2006. I would not care if he were Hitler incarnate, notability is the sole criterion, and I fear that anger at the user may result in harming the inclusion of a notable person in the encyclopedia, which is a valid reason to retain the page.
WP:CSD refers, indeed, to banned users -- with a link to a list of them. BTW, it the person is notable, by definition this could be used to improve the article.
Collect (
talk)
12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the user is indef-blocked and the subject is a WP:BLP so not an appropriate one for userspace unless the user is likely to get it to mainspace real soon, which he isn't because not only is he blocked but this is also one of the longest-running perennial requests at DRV, with every request apparently being from the subject. Guy ( Help!) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Recreation of a deleted article by a sock of indefinitely blocked editor. It seems that if this person ever comes to satisfy notability policy, someone other than the subject of the article should write it. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete
G5: page created on 2009-12-10 by account banned as a sockpuppet (
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnBambenek/Archive) of
User:JohnBambenek in violation of indefinite ban on 2007-03-04. Already G5 regardless of namespace, and page would still meet G5 even if moved into article namespace. --
Closeapple (
talk)
03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment User:JohnBambenek is not banned, he's indefinitely blocked. This is not eligible for G5. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 15:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, speedy even. Multiple failures, starting from "recreation of deleted article" to "product of indefinitely blocked editor" to "Userspace is not an endrun around encyclopedic requirements" to "WP is not a bureaucracy". -- Calton | Talk 03:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Please allow me some time to find better sources before you delete the Bambenek page altogether. The creator of this user subpage is banned and cannot be expected to make the necessary sourcing improvements. Besides, this page is harmless as long as it resides out of the mainspace. My team of experts and I need approximately 18 days to find better sources, so I request that you put the MfD on hold until then. I'm seeing far too much focus on the banned editor's past behavior and past AfDs. I will ensure that Bambenek's notability is clearly demonstrated and that all sources are impeccable, but I need time. There are, um, no deadlines on Wikipedia, remember?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete but not speedily Let's do this the right way. The creator of this page is indefinitely blocked, not banned, and the same goes for the sockmaster. CSD G5 does not apply here. That said, this recreation of an article deleted by deletion discussion in the userspace is a form of
gaming the system, and this page is in violation of
WP:FAKEARTICLE and
WP:SUB. The fact that the creator is indefinitely blocked also encourages deletion. I note that The Fat Man Who Never Came Back is now working on a draft article on Bambenek in his userspace, also nullifying the need for this draft's continued existence.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
15:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like the page in CharlesJohnson22's userspace is now a redirect to the Fat Man's draft. So delete the redirect and keep the Fat Man's draft, which is apparently the new subject of this nomination.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- No one should be allowed to keep a draft of this page. The Fat Man moved the page to screw with this process. Redirect or not, the content should still be deleted.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the way I see it, there's no reason why the Fat Man shouldn't be allowed to work on a draft article in his userspace.
WP:N does not apply to userspace drafts; this is not AfD. Also the assertion that he "moved the page to screw with this process" is pretty serious; do you have anything to back that up?
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
16:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's never going to be allowed to be made into an article. And all The Fat Man has done during the creation of this page is back up the sockpuppeteer (read the discussion I had with him on his talk page). The Fat Man is no more here to build an encyclopedia than John Bambenek and his sockpuppet brigade are.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
16:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I read that discussion. Although I agree that the Fat Man has skirted the edge of civility in discussions related to this page – and although I doubt an article on Bambenek would survive long in the mainspace – I believe the Fat Man should be allowed to work on a draft in his userspace, so long as he is, in fact, working on a draft and not letting this languish indefinitely in his userspace to game the system. Moreover, I caution you against disparaging the Fat Man too much. Although the Fat Man holds strong negative views of many editors, the notion that he's not here to build an encyclopedia is dispelled by his 3000+ mainspace edits.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- He is no longer here to build an encyclopedia because he had an IP address solely devoted to performing vandalism and was only allowed to edit after that IP was unblocked as it is the only one he uses to edit from. He is still gaming the system and is using this as a very explicit middle finger to users he does not believe should be allowed to do much of anything on Wikipedia anymore. He outright attacks people on the talk page of the subpage.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I read that discussion. Although I agree that the Fat Man has skirted the edge of civility in discussions related to this page – and although I doubt an article on Bambenek would survive long in the mainspace – I believe the Fat Man should be allowed to work on a draft in his userspace, so long as he is, in fact, working on a draft and not letting this languish indefinitely in his userspace to game the system. Moreover, I caution you against disparaging the Fat Man too much. Although the Fat Man holds strong negative views of many editors, the notion that he's not here to build an encyclopedia is dispelled by his 3000+ mainspace edits.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's never going to be allowed to be made into an article. And all The Fat Man has done during the creation of this page is back up the sockpuppeteer (read the discussion I had with him on his talk page). The Fat Man is no more here to build an encyclopedia than John Bambenek and his sockpuppet brigade are.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
16:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the way I see it, there's no reason why the Fat Man shouldn't be allowed to work on a draft article in his userspace.
WP:N does not apply to userspace drafts; this is not AfD. Also the assertion that he "moved the page to screw with this process" is pretty serious; do you have anything to back that up?
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
16:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- No one should be allowed to keep a draft of this page. The Fat Man moved the page to screw with this process. Redirect or not, the content should still be deleted.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like the page in CharlesJohnson22's userspace is now a redirect to the Fat Man's draft. So delete the redirect and keep the Fat Man's draft, which is apparently the new subject of this nomination.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Acute WP:POINT violation and proxying for a banned user, Jbamb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has spent literally years trying to get an autobiography on Wikipedia. Guy ( Help!) 22:44, 12 December 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.
- 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 delete. This userspace essay, no matter where it has been moved, appears to violate a number of our policies regarding disruptive editing and page creations by banned users. The notability of the subject has been determined a large number of times previously (see John Bambenek, John C. Bambenek, John C. A. Bambenek, and John C.A. Bambenek). There is also the potential for issues related to biographies of living people. The voting here (after about a day and a half) is strongly leaning toward delete, as well. The sum of the issues here weighs strongly against allowing this debate to run for a full seven days, so I'm closing this early. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back/JohnBambenek
This subpage was made for the intent to produce an article on perennially non-notable John Bambenek ( John C. Bambenek, John C. A. Bambenek, John C.A. Bambenek, etc.), usually by the article subject, the effectively banned JohnBambenek ( talk · contribs) (as in no administrator in his or her right mind would decide to unilaterally unblock the account). This page has no use at all on Wikipedia, and if it is proven that the author CharlesJohnson22 ( talk · contribs) is actually a sockpuppet (I do not have access to the page histories in order to pull any particular names up, but the history of attempts to get the article deleted, undeleted etc. are found here; oh look categories Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JohnBambenek, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JohnBambenek), then the page should likely be deleted per WP:CSD#G5, the creation of a banned user.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey everybody! I
moved the page from CharlesJohnson22's user space to my own. Since Mr. Johnson is banned, he will not be able to improve the article. I, on the other hand, have extensive encylopedia-building experience and intend to find better sources and, ultimately, to bring the article up to featured status.--
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (
talk)
11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Moving the page is not going to keep this deletion discussion from occuring.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete! This is unhelpful towards building an encyclopedia. Miami33139 ( talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I said some very bad things on the talk page, and I wish for the talk page to be deleted so no one can read the bad things that I said.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 09:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Nick-D ( talk) 09:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The task of MfD is not to erase people who are no longer around. As fopr the blocking of the socks, it is unclear whether current procedures would have resulted in the same "effectively banned" result (no actual discussions appear extant). As I did not find any ruling "banning" the user, it appears the criterion is not applicable. Unless of course "block" and "ban" are synonymous here. As for "unhelpful" - that is not a specific reason for deletion at MfD, nor is "I said bad things."
Collect (
talk)
11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Everything on Wikipedia needs to be about furthering the goals of the Wikipedia project. So yes, unhelpful to the goals of the project is a reason for deletion. Miami33139 ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Author has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user (which no administrator will unblock) JohnBambenek. And this page has no use for the encyclopedia. No one can improve an article with it, and the only reason it was brought here is because the user is not community banned but indefinitely blocked and because it was not considered spam. A political (of or relating to policy) keep is of no use, just because you think the other reasons are not viable MFD rationales.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which might be valid if the person had zero notability. As it is, there are now numerous RS sources )ABC, CBS, usw.) quoting the person dating after 2006. I would not care if he were Hitler incarnate, notability is the sole criterion, and I fear that anger at the user may result in harming the inclusion of a notable person in the encyclopedia, which is a valid reason to retain the page.
WP:CSD refers, indeed, to banned users -- with a link to a list of them. BTW, it the person is notable, by definition this could be used to improve the article.
Collect (
talk)
12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- The person indeed has zero notability. The only references in the possible article are to passing mentions of the man's name (or a passing appearance in the video) where he was quoted. I do not see any mentions of ABC or CBS. The only publications where the man has been given any sort of major coverage are online blogs defaming him and various non-reliable sources. And this "anger" stems from the fact that all he has ever done on Wikipedia is write about himself so an article can be made.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- The references are well after 2006, and are readily found through googlenews, etc. In quantity now. He may be a horrid twerp, but assertion that because he was not notable in 2006 that he is not notable now is a weak one.
Collect (
talk)
16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome to move this article to your own userspace to work on it if you think it has future viability. You are welcome to put the article in the main project if you think it would survive AfD. This user doesn't need this subpage anymore and deletion is an appropriate outcome as it exists now. Miami33139 ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:DRV is over there, and you can make your case there. -- Calton | Talk 03:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The references are well after 2006, and are readily found through googlenews, etc. In quantity now. He may be a horrid twerp, but assertion that because he was not notable in 2006 that he is not notable now is a weak one.
Collect (
talk)
16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which might be valid if the person had zero notability. As it is, there are now numerous RS sources )ABC, CBS, usw.) quoting the person dating after 2006. I would not care if he were Hitler incarnate, notability is the sole criterion, and I fear that anger at the user may result in harming the inclusion of a notable person in the encyclopedia, which is a valid reason to retain the page.
WP:CSD refers, indeed, to banned users -- with a link to a list of them. BTW, it the person is notable, by definition this could be used to improve the article.
Collect (
talk)
12:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the user is indef-blocked and the subject is a WP:BLP so not an appropriate one for userspace unless the user is likely to get it to mainspace real soon, which he isn't because not only is he blocked but this is also one of the longest-running perennial requests at DRV, with every request apparently being from the subject. Guy ( Help!) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Recreation of a deleted article by a sock of indefinitely blocked editor. It seems that if this person ever comes to satisfy notability policy, someone other than the subject of the article should write it. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete
G5: page created on 2009-12-10 by account banned as a sockpuppet (
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnBambenek/Archive) of
User:JohnBambenek in violation of indefinite ban on 2007-03-04. Already G5 regardless of namespace, and page would still meet G5 even if moved into article namespace. --
Closeapple (
talk)
03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment User:JohnBambenek is not banned, he's indefinitely blocked. This is not eligible for G5. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 15:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, speedy even. Multiple failures, starting from "recreation of deleted article" to "product of indefinitely blocked editor" to "Userspace is not an endrun around encyclopedic requirements" to "WP is not a bureaucracy". -- Calton | Talk 03:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Please allow me some time to find better sources before you delete the Bambenek page altogether. The creator of this user subpage is banned and cannot be expected to make the necessary sourcing improvements. Besides, this page is harmless as long as it resides out of the mainspace. My team of experts and I need approximately 18 days to find better sources, so I request that you put the MfD on hold until then. I'm seeing far too much focus on the banned editor's past behavior and past AfDs. I will ensure that Bambenek's notability is clearly demonstrated and that all sources are impeccable, but I need time. There are, um, no deadlines on Wikipedia, remember?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete but not speedily Let's do this the right way. The creator of this page is indefinitely blocked, not banned, and the same goes for the sockmaster. CSD G5 does not apply here. That said, this recreation of an article deleted by deletion discussion in the userspace is a form of
gaming the system, and this page is in violation of
WP:FAKEARTICLE and
WP:SUB. The fact that the creator is indefinitely blocked also encourages deletion. I note that The Fat Man Who Never Came Back is now working on a draft article on Bambenek in his userspace, also nullifying the need for this draft's continued existence.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
15:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like the page in CharlesJohnson22's userspace is now a redirect to the Fat Man's draft. So delete the redirect and keep the Fat Man's draft, which is apparently the new subject of this nomination.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- No one should be allowed to keep a draft of this page. The Fat Man moved the page to screw with this process. Redirect or not, the content should still be deleted.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the way I see it, there's no reason why the Fat Man shouldn't be allowed to work on a draft article in his userspace.
WP:N does not apply to userspace drafts; this is not AfD. Also the assertion that he "moved the page to screw with this process" is pretty serious; do you have anything to back that up?
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
16:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's never going to be allowed to be made into an article. And all The Fat Man has done during the creation of this page is back up the sockpuppeteer (read the discussion I had with him on his talk page). The Fat Man is no more here to build an encyclopedia than John Bambenek and his sockpuppet brigade are.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
16:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I read that discussion. Although I agree that the Fat Man has skirted the edge of civility in discussions related to this page – and although I doubt an article on Bambenek would survive long in the mainspace – I believe the Fat Man should be allowed to work on a draft in his userspace, so long as he is, in fact, working on a draft and not letting this languish indefinitely in his userspace to game the system. Moreover, I caution you against disparaging the Fat Man too much. Although the Fat Man holds strong negative views of many editors, the notion that he's not here to build an encyclopedia is dispelled by his 3000+ mainspace edits.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- He is no longer here to build an encyclopedia because he had an IP address solely devoted to performing vandalism and was only allowed to edit after that IP was unblocked as it is the only one he uses to edit from. He is still gaming the system and is using this as a very explicit middle finger to users he does not believe should be allowed to do much of anything on Wikipedia anymore. He outright attacks people on the talk page of the subpage.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I read that discussion. Although I agree that the Fat Man has skirted the edge of civility in discussions related to this page – and although I doubt an article on Bambenek would survive long in the mainspace – I believe the Fat Man should be allowed to work on a draft in his userspace, so long as he is, in fact, working on a draft and not letting this languish indefinitely in his userspace to game the system. Moreover, I caution you against disparaging the Fat Man too much. Although the Fat Man holds strong negative views of many editors, the notion that he's not here to build an encyclopedia is dispelled by his 3000+ mainspace edits.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's never going to be allowed to be made into an article. And all The Fat Man has done during the creation of this page is back up the sockpuppeteer (read the discussion I had with him on his talk page). The Fat Man is no more here to build an encyclopedia than John Bambenek and his sockpuppet brigade are.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
16:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the way I see it, there's no reason why the Fat Man shouldn't be allowed to work on a draft article in his userspace.
WP:N does not apply to userspace drafts; this is not AfD. Also the assertion that he "moved the page to screw with this process" is pretty serious; do you have anything to back that up?
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
16:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- No one should be allowed to keep a draft of this page. The Fat Man moved the page to screw with this process. Redirect or not, the content should still be deleted.—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙)
15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like the page in CharlesJohnson22's userspace is now a redirect to the Fat Man's draft. So delete the redirect and keep the Fat Man's draft, which is apparently the new subject of this nomination.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk)
15:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Acute WP:POINT violation and proxying for a banned user, Jbamb ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has spent literally years trying to get an autobiography on Wikipedia. Guy ( Help!) 22:44, 12 December 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.