Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grounded into a double play


 * 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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator, following copyright violation being removed. Addhoc (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Grounded into a double play
Exact copy of article at Double play. Fails WP:USER. Redfarmer (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Addhoc (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  nancy   (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedied by me as a copyvio because it doesn't preserve attribution and restored. Have at it. east. 718 at 21:01, February 16, 2008
 * I'm not sure what we should do with this now; it appears that it should have been speedied under 'G4 - Recreation of Deleted Material; the MfD tag has been removed in all the deletion recreation game and the page is currently listed simultaneously for RfD at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_16. Based on the user's talk page it looks like he or she is well due for a block, though the change to a redirect may'' be an attempt to play by the rules, or at least to avoid a dead loser.  I suggest we close this discussion because the changes made take it out of this venue, and arguably fix the problems (they at least fix the problem that was there before and substantially change the basis for deletion).  But we should keep a close eye on this user as the good intent I hope is indicated by the change may not be.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an issue with page history though - it still contains the G-12 problems - that should be speedied by someone. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The RfD has closed by changing it to a soft redirect, but the issue of Copyvio page history remains, that wasn't discussed at the RfD.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug, I've deleted the history. If no-one objects, I think we could probably close this discussion. Addhoc (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I say go for it. Redfarmer (talk) 20:24, 17 February 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.