Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Caston Smith

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 debate was Speedy delete per G7/U1. If the creator is blanking the page, under CSD G7, he can be considered to be making a deletion request; this wouldn't normally apply to a page edited by others, but -- as this is his user page -- his latitude in requesting deletion is considerably more broad. Any editor, other than the user himself, who attempts to restore deleted content to the page should be warned, and then appropriately blocked for disruption. Xoloz (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caston Smith

Page was an essay, but it was blanked, then restored by an IP, then blanked by the user, then restored by an IP, etc., etc., etc. If the page is restored, it fails WP:Userpage as non WP-related material. If it was left blank, I would not have nominated, but it keeps getting restored, so here we are. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a need for this to be deleted just because one revision of the page is persistently being restored. Perhaps page protection or a block of the reverting user would be a better choice than having the page deleted... deleting it doesn't make much sense at all. Spebi 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Spebi, page protection seems more appropriate, and blocking any anon user who persists in restoring it (after due warning of course).--Beloved Freak 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the content that's being restored is more than just an essay -- it's a complete copyright violation of this. --JayHenry (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caston Smith has a right to request the page be deleted. It is his name being defamed and Wikipedia was not created to be a slander sheet, at least I do not think so. I restored the page a couple times because others wanted to read it and did not know how to restore a blank page. For this I apologize if it was against Wiki policy. The page was a newspaper article and so far as I know was not approved for posting here. Caston Smith posted this article and now wants it deleted so I see no reason why it should stay. If others like Rick Ross want to post it that is their decision. But Wiki should not be a slander sheet for anyone against anyone. (talk) 12:40, January 8, 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.183.125 (talk)

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.