Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A.Z./Imagine


 * 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 Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:A.Z./Imagine
Personal essays of an editor indef-blocked for pedophilia advocacy and wikilawyering. Not useful in any way.
 * Also included -


 * User:A.Z./Administrators
 * User:A.Z./Give examples -  JohnnyMrNinja  09:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep These essays don't have anything to do with pedophilia, and looking at his talk page, there appear to be a couple of people who disagree with the indef block. I'm not willing to erase all traces of his presence on Wikipedia and turn him into an unperson. -- Groggy Dice T | C 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We do not practice damnatio memoriae on Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It was inappropriate of me to mention pedophilia and I apologize. My main point was that the user in indefinitely blocked, and these essays only serve to add further clutter to Category:User essays. Imagine and Administrators are just standing points against administrators. Give examples was moved from WP space because it was felt that it wasn't useful there, so what (with the User gone) makes it useful here?  JohnnyMrNinja  04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that of the essays, only "Administrators" (which is not a criticism of specific admins, but of the process for promoting and demoting them) develops its points in detail. However, low quality is not normally grounds for deleting userspace essays, and I'm simply not comfortable with deleting the contents of a user who was not a vandal or spam account, and whose only block before the indef block was a 24-hour block from months before. We can agree that pedophilia is bad, but what's next? We already have a former Arbitrator who thinks it should be an indef-blockable offense to doubt global warming. I'd hate to think that if I ran afoul of some hot-button topic of the future, I could suddenly be indef-blocked for "pro-yellowist advocacy," and then have my userspace exterminated. -- Groggy Dice T | C 12:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:UW, "Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice.". While this isn't a user talk page, is there any reason we SHOULDN'T simply blank the page? DigitalC (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because then people wouldn't be able to see them? -- Ned Scott 05:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the purpose of clearing the talk page isn't to "hide" its contents or "erase" the user, but to make sure that the block notice is prominent, not buried in a mountain of talk. -- Groggy Dice T | C 12:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm pretty much opposed to deleting user pages of indef users that are not problematic. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The block had nothing to do with bad faith, trolling, etc.; there'd be no point in deleting these subpages. — xDanielx  T/C\R 06:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A block, and reasons for the block, are not relevent.  The pages have clear use.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove from categories. The essays are in userspace, and (at least somewhat) fall within such guidelines. That said, essays of an indef blocked user should probably not be categorised. - jc37 21:51, 15 July 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.