Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deepmath/Chemistry 101

 __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 all. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Deepmath/Chemistry 101


Also:


 * User:Deepmath/Nutrition
 * User:Deepmath/Chapstick lesbian (backup copy)
 * User:Deepmath/Chapstick lesbian
 * User:Deepmath/Health care reform
 * User:Deepmath/Stock trading terms

A series of part WP:FAKEARTICLE/stale draft, part political rant, part personal ranting subpages under a now indef blocked user. OSbornarfcontribs. 04:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Oneiros (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTMYSPACE --It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 23:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Opinion pieces that go against WP:NOTWEBHOST. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is blocked?  His live contributions before the block don't seem to call for it.  Why was User talk:Deepmath deleted 22 September 2009?  User:Deepmath was a productive editor, I thought, who got into some trouble in August 2009, over a large amount of material unrelated to the project on his userpage.  However, it was mix of suitable userpage material, and other stuff that pushed the boundaries of a reasonable introduction to the person.  These subpages, I think, were created to separate his different sorts of material, and each subpage should therefore be viewed in that context (not that I'm saying it will help).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: Block. Thanks RL0919.  I wish that blocks and block notices were better recorded.  Both the block log and the template notice of block should have referenced Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558.
 * RE: Chapstick pages: Feeling weak.  It is a real term out there, but maybe not enough above a neologism.  In the usersapce of a Wikipedian in good standing, I'd say it is find to keep blanked.  Reading the AfDs (AfD1 - merge (not done)  AfD2 - userfy), I think the page should have been redirected to Lipstick lesbian, not userfied, with optional merge.  "Weak delete" versus "weak move back to mainspace and redirect per AfD1".
 * RE: Nutrition & Health care reform. Delete as blatant OR, even NOT:SOAPBOX violating material.
 * RE: Stock trading terms. Delete.  Not outrageously bad, but must be deleted as "Stale" given the clarity of Articles for deletion/Stock trading terms.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Material is not beneficial to the project and the account is unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. Regarding the block, I believe much of the relevant behavior is in edits that have been deleted or oversighted, although you can see some personal attacks in edits that are still visible. I looked at some of the user's deleted contribution and will charitably describe them as "eccentric". For example, there was a deleted user subpage about being stalked by gay freemasons. --RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2012 (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.