Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JohnPaulus

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 no consensus. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:JohnPaulus

ID was created for the purpose of protesting his bio; user-talk contains violations of BLP (his and another's). User has not edited since that date; the creation of the ID and subsequent discussion related to establishing his identity, and then, to ask that his bio be deleted. The bio was submitted for AfD [1] and was deleted. -Jmh123 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both the user and user talk page. They are essentially talk page forks of the deleted article, so they have no reason to exist anymore. Shalom ^Hello 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a puzzling request. His bio article was correctly deleted, but I don't see any problems here on his Talk page. By tradition the user could blank his own Talk page if he wants to. Deletion does not appear necessary. It is not clear how his own comments on his User talk could possibly be a BLP violation against *him*. If other editors believe that a specific person is being defamed on JohnPaulus's User Talk then I'd be OK with deletion, though all I noticed were claims about *unnamed* people who put wrong information on certain blogs. EdJohnston 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The violation against another is in the claims regarding Clay Aiken referred to on the talk page. The violation against Paulus is reference to his retraction of his claim regarding Aiken, and it was this reference that caused him to ask that his bio be removed. There is a link on his user talk page to an article about the retraction. Though he did write a retraction in his blog, he was very upset to see it mentioned in Wikipedia, as he subsequently retracted his retraction. If it is preferable, I could delete those violations, but as it is not my user page and his registration was solely for the purpose of proving his identity and arguing for deletion of his bio, I thought this was a better approach. -Jmh123 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think JohnPaulus won't come back, I don't object to any reasonable cleanup plan. I was just reacting on the 'principle' that we should be cautious about deleting User Talk pages. Note the analogy to painful AfD debates. In the past we would sometimes *delete* uncomfortable AfD debates, while these days it seems common to use Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking. In the Paulus case, if a new issue should come up where the user's past behavior was relevant, deletion of the Talk page would make it hard to evaluate the situation. EdJohnston 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will do some clean-up, and it will be clear from the edit history what I have removed, in case there are any objections, and in case others still want to be able to read it to consider the case for deletion. -Jmh123 03:28, 3 July 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.