Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AirportExpert

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. After almost a month, the editor whose RfA this page represents has not added to the discussion (though they have been editing rather regularly during the course of this discussion), so there is no guaranteed way to determine if WP:G7 will be invoked. In addition, there is no definite way to determine if the editor still wants to keep this page in existence due to a possible run in the futile. Since there does not seem to be any harm with this page existing, in addition to this discussion being open for almost a month, it's time for a close. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AirportExpert[edit]

Abandoned RfA. It seems filed in good faith but has been parked unedited for over six months, and I don't think will go "live" any time soon. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Has the subject expressed a view? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No reason offered for deletion. WP:SK#1. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "no reason" - I've given a reason in the opening statement! See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 246#Graveyard_RfAs - if we followed that, this page would have been deleted per WP:G6 already. I thought I had chatted to AirportExpert about this some months ago, but I'm not sure I did. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G6 abuse and out-of-process deletions of pages of significance to the non admins who prepared them, and now can’t access them.

Userfy is the obviously preferable WP:ATD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a unanimous consensus for that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous consensus? Who made up that term? And what specifically are you taking about? G6? Policy status of ATD? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to an “old unused” subpage is another alternative, and they maybe useful in considering the never ending RfA reform. Every unused RfA can be considered feedback on what non admins may thing about RfA; deleting them hides the evidence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep user can ~~WP:CSD#U1~~ WP:CSD#G7 if they want. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If userfied, or CSD#G7 regardless. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SmokeyJoe: I meant to say G7 up there, thanks for the note! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC) :> SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest discussing with the editor if they would like it moved to a subpage under their user page, or just deleted. isaacl (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfying is far less rude than deleting. Most other old RfA subpages were bad faith or jokes, or empty, or created by a different editor. This is none of those. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2018 (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.