Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cremepuff222/Autograph Book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep This is a blatantly disruptive, pointy nomination that contains a personal attack in the nomination. John Reaves (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Cremepuff222/Autograph Book

Delete created just to beat ANNAFOXLOVER'S signiture page count. See: About the way I automatically posted "sign my page" on 100 user talk pages, what I did was I simply copied the message and then pasted it on quite a few user talk pages, but I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS! I JUST WANTED TO COLLECT THE SIGNATURES OF EVERY SINGLE WIKIPEDIAN, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS PROBABLY NOT POSSIBLE. DO NOT DO THIS! IT GOT ME IN A LOT OF TROUBLE!!! Why did I do this? Because Cremepuff222 made his lifelong goal to get more signatures than me, and I wanted to show him that he is a bragging jerk. Anyway, that's why and how I did it; but DO NOT DO THIS Thanks. WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) make a sig! 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment is there a real reason for deletion here? Just because Anna claims that's the reason he created it doesn't make it an invalid page. Metros232 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very rarely does a nomination confuse me to the point where I have to say this, but this one does. What the hell? -Amarkov moo! 03:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Apparently this quote comes from here. Anna left Wikiman53 that note on his talk page and that seems to be his justification for the nomination. Metros232 03:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Ohhhh, that makes sense. This seemed familiar, which just added to the confusion. Anyway, my opinion remains the same; asserting that a page was created for competition does not make it so. -Amarkov moo! 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I wouldn't go so far as Amarkov, but yeah, what's the problem? We've discussed this already, and signature pages are generally okay. So let it rest. YechielMan 03:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very, very reluctant keep. This is clearly a WP:DISRUPT nomination, but this highlights one of the major problems I have with autograph books. --Coredesat 04:35, 13 April 2007 (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.