Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scientistguy

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 discussion was keep. Revised version is not a problem. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scientistguy

Admins can confirm this but this is substantially the same information as was posted at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/My family history and deleted at this MFD. This comment by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) indicates that this is the same user. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they share the same family, then there's a strange case of WP:BROTHER going on. Delete of course, and an admin should investigate the obvious sockpuppetry angle. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 21:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're kidding, right? He hasn't used the account since 2005 and is up front that this is his account. --B (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't care about the original discussion, but since it ended in delete, it seems clearly inappropriate to work around that decision in this way. Shimeru (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous MFD. Clearly this page conflicts with WP:UP. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G4, content deleted at an XFD. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons mentioned in the original MfD. Ale_Jrb ^talk 17:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / defer to user - subsequent to the start of this MFD, Richard replaced it with a single paragraph. I don't see any reason whatsoever to delete even the longer version, but since it is now just a paragraph explaining the account, there's even less of a reason. --B (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing harmful here now, and what you would expect on a user page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The offending content has been removed, and what remains is harmless. Plenty of users have old accounts with this type of information. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now it's been replaced by a brief self-description, it's fine. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.