Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wobble/pa

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 Keep ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wobble/pa

WP:IAR. This page contains nothing but an offensive conversation, apparently unrelated to any useful activity on Wikipedia. Regardless of what the rules say - or what day of the year it is - it should be speedily deleted. YechielMan 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, you have my blessing to have this Deleted. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason to delete - this is simply an amusing record of anons being shown up as idiots for throwing childish insults on Wikipedia. bd2412 T 04:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The anons are shown as idiots, but the ed. always replies. I'd say delete for the general good. DGG 06:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Blatant personal attacks against people who he/she does not even know.Tellyaddict 11:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, to show how stupid some people can be. Abeg92contribs 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep to show how stupid some wikipedians can be. --Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - There is precedent for active users to keep a seperate talk archive of insults that they receive from other users/vandals. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see why this should be kept, it's what most people remove from their pages as vandalism. · AO ^Talk 10:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep to demonstrate how not to behave on Wikipedia. However, I think a note to that effect should be inserted at the top of the page, otherwise the reasons for saving the conversation are unclear. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as stated in some previous MFDs of other content, we do not have a use for negative examples of anything, as it has the potential to send out the wrong signal to users. Also, putting a tag on it and calling it an example is not an appropriate thing to do in userspace. --Coredesat 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm saying that there is precedent because I've seen many of these pages, but I have to admit that I haven't seen the prior MFDs on any. Can you please point me to a couple, either by replying here or on my talk page, that I might reference. Perhaps I need to alter my thoughts here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The MFD I'm referring to is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timecop/The war on blogs. And also, precedents don't necessarily matter, as consensus can change, and there's no such thing as stare decisis here. --Coredesat 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Well, the whole discussion can be seen on the user's talk page, and then was moved to this subpage by the user himself. Then, an additional reply was added by Globe01 (talk · contribs) on this page specifically, although I'm not sure that Wobble was aware of this. The initial revision of this page had Lupin's javascript edit count script, and then sampling an infobox, and then the text from the user talk page. The page hasn't been touched by said user since. I would say keep the page, unless the author specifically wants it to be deleted. Appears to be a sandbox of sorts, and we don't delete inactive sandboxes. Revert to the infobox revision if you want. Gracenotes^T § 21:18, 4 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.