Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PouponOnToast/LWR

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 Deleted per user request. Also, WP:TROUT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Monitoring the activities of persons in an external forum has no legitimate purpose within the context of an encyclopedia-building project; and importing anything having to do with this particular forum into Wikipedia is distinctly unhelpful, at best. Kirill ^(prof) 13:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for various reasons. The accusations of impropriety by daring to associate with banned users outside wikipedia, WP:NOT a free webhost for divisive material (and this is the kind of thing that would be classified as stalking had it been done on WR not WP). Viridae^Talk 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Viridae. It also misrepresents some of those listed, which is becoming an unfortunate norm around here. Lara❤Love 13:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Kirill. Not an appropriate use of a page on this project - will foster considerable resentment for no appreciable benefit. WjBscribe 14:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• speedy Consider asking people to delete their pages before nominating them for MFD. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the page, and the approach, have major issues as currently constituted. We typically do not allow collection of laundry lists, etc, we tend to require that material be formatted in accordance with the RfC, or evidence formats rather than randomly. And yet, if this page ultimately demonstrated that WR is not 100% evil, demonstrated cases where discussion there resulted in improvements in the project, and that editors should not be stigmatised merely for participating there, it would be of net benefit. I have my suspicions about PoT's motives in doing this but the data will speak for themselves. Therefore I would keep this at least for a little while and see what develops. If it turns into a partisan diatribe, delete it. If it is a balanced presentation of material, no problem. I would actually rather see it here than on some random blog where there is no hope of others helping ensure balance. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overcome by events... but I still think it's a keep. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - page has already been deleted at editor's request, and I have deleted the talk page per CSD:G6. This can be closed as resolved. Risker (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2008 (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.