Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2faction8/Lynn Nunes

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Given Joe's "delete now that we are here" I think there is a reasonable consensus to delete this rather than blanking, although I agree this stuff is better blanked than fussed over and brought here. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2faction8/Lynn Nunes


Very stubbity-stub two-sentence draft created 10 years ago by a user who hasn't been active since. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Blank. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection to “delete now that we are here”, but this material is harmless and not worthy of bringing to mfd. just blank things like this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Blank with inactive userpage blanked per WP:STALEDRAFT. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 15:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because most others have clarified: I prefer keeping the page over deleting it (which I believe an unqualified blank implies, but clarity is good nonetheless). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not seeing any real reason to blank, aside from not having a source (though there are no remotely controversial claims), but no opposition to blanking. Certainly no reason to delete here. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The original article, Lynn Nunes, was deleted for failing to meet notability guidelines. No reason to keep draft then. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (second choice Blank). The page in its current form is a BLP violation because it is written in the present tense about a living person's candidacy nine years ago and is therefore misleading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * “BLP violation” is an overstatement to the point of being incorrect. It says 2008. It was verifiable verified. Not everything BLP is “violation”. That source is in present tense, that does not make it misleading. Beware BLP zealotry. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete no reason to keep junk around Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2018 (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.