Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Viriditas/Arbcom
- 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 by user's agreement. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Page does not appear to have been used in a "timely manor" as described in WP:UP#POLEMICPage was created on 6MAR2013, with a statement on the top of the page it would be deleted 30 days later; it is now longer than that period. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
- Comment: On the contrary, the page was used in a timely manner and the evidence page was submitted in the Tea Party movement arbcom case. The page is no longer needed and could easily be deleted by request (following the instructions at "Before nominating a page for deletion") or adding the {{db-userreq}} template as indicated on the very page itself. It is curious why RightCowLeftCoast did not follow the posted instructions and decided to come here instead. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am not the creater of the page, and looking at the userreq template, I was under the impression that the "owner" of the article space had to self request the deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're not following instructions again. First, per the MfD instructions you are supposed to contact the owner and ask them to remove the page, which I would have done. Second, the page is already tagged, indicating that anyone may delete it: "If you are viewing this page after 2013-06-25, there has been an oversight on my part. Please request such deletion via {{db-userreq}} in my stead." Obviously, the date is wrong, but the page is ready to be deleted. There was no need for you to bring this to Mfd. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, as stated by the template itself (emphasis mine):
As I am not "its user", I cannot request it to be deleted per CSD U1, only the above editor can. If the above editor adds Template:Db-u1 to the page which is the subject of this MfD, then this can be closed by a non-admin, but until which time that the page is deleted through the completion of application of aforementioned template, this MfD IMHO is proper in its standing.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a user page or subpage requested to be deleted by its user
- Unfortunately, as stated by the template itself (emphasis mine):
- You're not following instructions again. First, per the MfD instructions you are supposed to contact the owner and ask them to remove the page, which I would have done. Second, the page is already tagged, indicating that anyone may delete it: "If you are viewing this page after 2013-06-25, there has been an oversight on my part. Please request such deletion via {{db-userreq}} in my stead." Obviously, the date is wrong, but the page is ready to be deleted. There was no need for you to bring this to Mfd. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am not the creater of the page, and looking at the userreq template, I was under the impression that the "owner" of the article space had to self request the deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - ArbCom pages for evidence were closed long ago. Case is suspended now anyway. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2013 (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.