Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaabbccz/Tajin Rogers

 __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 deleted, smacks of G6, G2, G1 and maybe some socks thrown in Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Aaabbccz/Tajin Rogers
Non neatural M62 motorway (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Puzzlement When did 'non-natural' become a ground for deletion - and in userspace at that? I presume Aaabbccz has a reason for this subpage, and possibly there is an explanation to be found at User talk:Aaabbccz. I think it could well be that this subpage needs deleting as simple maintenance, unless Aaabbccz really wants it. It's not spam, it's not an attack, I doubt that it's a copyvio - those are the main reasons for deleting in userspace. Peridon (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "non-neutral" was meant. Reyk  YO!  23:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that was, either... Peridon (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the user meant to userfy this to User:Jhwang333/Tajin Rogers, but it's not needed in the first place. If Aaabbccz really wants it, he should be allowed to keep it, but otherwise it should be deleted as maintenance per Peridon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. Cunard (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I add that this page can be found through a Google search. That this page could cast the subject, Tajin Rogers, in a negative light because of the repeating sentences that the subject is smart—indicating self-centeredness and immaturity—is an additional rationale for deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add here a comment I made to Metropolitan90: "I think we may not find out what he/she thinks about that MfD. The user appeared on Feb 12th, edited quite expertly (including RfD, AfD, and SPI) for six hours and hasn't been seen since - unless the user has reverted to IP editing or was a sock for some reason. Oddly, the editing finished with an SPI started, a signature in the evidence space but no evidence. (I accuse the gardener in the library with a sock...)" Peridon (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as Sandbox Which it certainly appears to be at this point. Editor appears to be trying to be a valued contributor, and is new with this name. No "bite" as user certainly appears to be one previously around. Collect (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the talk page I cited above? The contents of the page in question here were created by another user and userfied by Aaabbccz - that's not what I think of as 'sandbox'. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2011 (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.