Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanedidona/CAoW

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was speedy deleted by User:MarkSweep 17:16, 2 February 2006, citing it to be a recreation of Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. Steve block talk 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shanedidona/CAoW

See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 2, and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 2.

This was already deleted from the Wikipedia namespace not so long ago. I believe it is totally wrong to organize Wikipedians like this (userboxes being one thing, this being an altogether different ball of wax). Totally inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If this person wants to keep a souvenier from the CAoW page, their hard drive is a good place for it. Ruby 01:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mushroom (Talk) 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per previous discussion.--SarekOfVulcan 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - previous discussion here.--SarekOfVulcan 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Per Tito, kill it, kill it with fire. --Calton | Talk 03:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Even if we ignore all other reasons, it's utterly offensive to assume that all Catholics must assume Shanedidona and Chooserr's view of the world. The Alliance is not only POV, divisive, and set up for purposes at odds with the way the community prefers to work, but it also presumes to speak for all Catholics of all political stripes, and Shanedidona is far from qualified to do that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't think of a single valid reason for re-creating this page anywhere. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Let these folks first actually misbehave. If they do, mark as deprecacted and archive, don't delete. (Um, duh?) Kim Bruning 11:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Excommunicate - expunge - defrock and delete blot out from Jimbo's book of life, cast into the outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. --Doc ^ask? 11:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy and warn user. Userifying things that were deleted because they were designed to POV push is POV pushing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Hipo and Tito. --Aaron 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 2 February 2006 (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.