Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletions and editor retention

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 Delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletions and editor retention[edit]

Misplaced user essay. See Admin noticeboard thread for some context, but this isn't part of an RFC, shouldn't be here. Suggest userfying. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Agreed -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ per nom. Is speedy userfy a thing? It's possible the creator meant to create the essay and then request feedback on it, but it's misplaced here anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy makes sense. ansh666 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete also makes sense. ansh666 08:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy please - as creator of this page, I must say: thanks John. Some of your policy decisions have the best interest of wikipedia in mind. 750editsstrong (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal attack and inappropriate use of an admitted sockpuppet account. This has all the hallmarks of a breaching experiment, and memorialising it in user space does not help the project as the parts of the argument that have merit have been better argued elsewhere without the unnecessary personalisation. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just an inclusionist whinge, nothing more, and not a real essay. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless "essay". Two parts polemic against perceived enemies, one part gushing hagiography about a disruptive breaching experiment, written by a sock-puppet abuser. KIWF. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (revised !vote) - I hadn't actually tried to read it. Based on the title I thought it was a thoughtful analysis of the (admittedly downward) trend of new user activity. It's not, though, it's just a detailed gripe about Jimbo, thinly veiled with one user's anecdotal observations. Delete per WP:NOTBLOG. Ivanvector (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment [as nominator] I've no problem with deletion either. Userfy/delete/whatever as long as it's out of WP space where it doesn't belong. It's been copied to various places anyway in case anyone actually needs to refer to it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have indef blocked the user who created this for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Although this page was not considered in that decision it is indicative of the repetitive spamming of essentially the same message across many forums that led to the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real need to move the page to user space, as the user is an indef blocked sockpuppet and obviously can't edit it legitimately any longer, and I think that we do as a matter of regular procedure remove contributions by sockpuppets. And all this for a rather obviously non-notable 5 women Dutch band? John Carter (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2015 (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.