- 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.-- Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight
AfDs for this article:
WP:POINTy subpage by a user who has left. All of these afds have long since closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Majorly talk 01:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nominator. — macy es: bot 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep >>>How can a list of AfD's, with no commentary at all, be a WP:POINT violation?<<< That is utterly ridiculous and absurd. Just a little background, Kmweber recently left wikipedia.
Two days ago Ten pound hammer put up six of Kmweber's user subpages up for deletion: - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/In Progress/Karl Kae Knecht notes No policy mentioned, admits page is harmless.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/3RR_loophole_update_notice No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion, nominator states they have nothing against Kmweber
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/In_Progress No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight WP:POINT mentioned, I don't understand how this user space page disrupts wikipedia.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion. States that he is not targeting Kmweber
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Welcome template No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
These pages are no more worthy of deletion than some of the nominator's own user subpages:
- All of knweber's user subpages meet Wikipedia:Subpage guidelines, even more than some of the nominator's own user pages (they are more directly related to wikipedia).
- User:Majorly and User:Macy made sure to be the first and second editors to vote delete in all of these user pages.
- Ten pound hammer supported the community ban of Kmweber: Kmweber community ban proposal (3rd), and also opposed his Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber
- travb ( talk) 11:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If anything, this nomination is
WP:POINTy. A page cannot be POINTy if noone cares for that page, because it does not disrupt Wikipedia then. Just leave it alone, it hurts no one (nor do any of the other pages nominated). Regards
So
Why 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, the
page history reveals the exactly same request for deletion 6 months ago (which is why I had this on my watchlist after all). I am sorry to say that but somehow it looks more like a desperate crusade to delete everything kmweber created...just let it go, will you?
So
Why 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I notice the other AfD was almost closed speedy keep (5-1). The closing administrator wrote:<brYou've made no argument that this page is hurting anything. Why spend time on an MFD?
Ten pound also insisted that he has nothing against Kmweber. As one of the editors wrote:
Nominating this for deletion is bordering on the ridiculous and it also smells of Kurt-bashing to me. I can't take this seriously. travb ( talk) 16:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I notice the other AfD was almost closed speedy keep (5-1). The closing administrator wrote:<brYou've made no argument that this page is hurting anything. Why spend time on an MFD?
- Also, the
page history reveals the exactly same request for deletion 6 months ago (which is why I had this on my watchlist after all). I am sorry to say that but somehow it looks more like a desperate crusade to delete everything kmweber created...just let it go, will you?
So
Why 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Themfromspace ( talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment this MfD overwrote the previous MfD (also by TpH) which closed as keep/ No comment on the merits of this MfD, but it should be fixed and moved to a proper location. StarM 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There is no violation of Wikipedia policy nor is there any disruption of Wikipedia. Why waste the time with dealing with these largely dead pages. Alansohn ( talk) 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Many people keep public lists of articles they want to delete. This is just the same. DGG ( talk) 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - user has left, all these AFDs are long since closed anyway, so there is no use in keeping this page. Besides, making lists of 'AFDs to fight' isn't very cooperative, and isn't the kind of behaviour we should encourage. Terraxos ( talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Promotes WP:BATTLE.-- Lenticel ( talk) 07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep/Rename Several editors, myself included, have lists of AFDs of interest. Even if they're long since closed, you'd want to keep them around to check the outcome at some point in the future. If the name is problematic, just rename it. - Mgm| (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:PERNOM, unless if we also have concerns with this and this as a number of editors active and inactive have such lists. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per SoWhy. I'm curious why you not only feel the need to revisit this particular MfD again after so many months but also to blank the previous discussion and outcome in the process. JPG-GR ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 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 keep.-- Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight
AfDs for this article:
WP:POINTy subpage by a user who has left. All of these afds have long since closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Majorly talk 01:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nominator. — macy es: bot 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep >>>How can a list of AfD's, with no commentary at all, be a WP:POINT violation?<<< That is utterly ridiculous and absurd. Just a little background, Kmweber recently left wikipedia.
Two days ago Ten pound hammer put up six of Kmweber's user subpages up for deletion: - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/In Progress/Karl Kae Knecht notes No policy mentioned, admits page is harmless.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/3RR_loophole_update_notice No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion, nominator states they have nothing against Kmweber
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/In_Progress No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight WP:POINT mentioned, I don't understand how this user space page disrupts wikipedia.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion. States that he is not targeting Kmweber
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Welcome template No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
These pages are no more worthy of deletion than some of the nominator's own user subpages:
- All of knweber's user subpages meet Wikipedia:Subpage guidelines, even more than some of the nominator's own user pages (they are more directly related to wikipedia).
- User:Majorly and User:Macy made sure to be the first and second editors to vote delete in all of these user pages.
- Ten pound hammer supported the community ban of Kmweber: Kmweber community ban proposal (3rd), and also opposed his Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber
- travb ( talk) 11:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If anything, this nomination is
WP:POINTy. A page cannot be POINTy if noone cares for that page, because it does not disrupt Wikipedia then. Just leave it alone, it hurts no one (nor do any of the other pages nominated). Regards
So
Why 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, the
page history reveals the exactly same request for deletion 6 months ago (which is why I had this on my watchlist after all). I am sorry to say that but somehow it looks more like a desperate crusade to delete everything kmweber created...just let it go, will you?
So
Why 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I notice the other AfD was almost closed speedy keep (5-1). The closing administrator wrote:<brYou've made no argument that this page is hurting anything. Why spend time on an MFD?
Ten pound also insisted that he has nothing against Kmweber. As one of the editors wrote:
Nominating this for deletion is bordering on the ridiculous and it also smells of Kurt-bashing to me. I can't take this seriously. travb ( talk) 16:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I notice the other AfD was almost closed speedy keep (5-1). The closing administrator wrote:<brYou've made no argument that this page is hurting anything. Why spend time on an MFD?
- Also, the
page history reveals the exactly same request for deletion 6 months ago (which is why I had this on my watchlist after all). I am sorry to say that but somehow it looks more like a desperate crusade to delete everything kmweber created...just let it go, will you?
So
Why 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Themfromspace ( talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment this MfD overwrote the previous MfD (also by TpH) which closed as keep/ No comment on the merits of this MfD, but it should be fixed and moved to a proper location. StarM 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There is no violation of Wikipedia policy nor is there any disruption of Wikipedia. Why waste the time with dealing with these largely dead pages. Alansohn ( talk) 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Many people keep public lists of articles they want to delete. This is just the same. DGG ( talk) 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - user has left, all these AFDs are long since closed anyway, so there is no use in keeping this page. Besides, making lists of 'AFDs to fight' isn't very cooperative, and isn't the kind of behaviour we should encourage. Terraxos ( talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Promotes WP:BATTLE.-- Lenticel ( talk) 07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep/Rename Several editors, myself included, have lists of AFDs of interest. Even if they're long since closed, you'd want to keep them around to check the outcome at some point in the future. If the name is problematic, just rename it. - Mgm| (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:PERNOM, unless if we also have concerns with this and this as a number of editors active and inactive have such lists. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per SoWhy. I'm curious why you not only feel the need to revisit this particular MfD again after so many months but also to blank the previous discussion and outcome in the process. JPG-GR ( talk) 23:36, 8 January 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.