Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/3RR loophole update notice


 * 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--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kmweber/3RR loophole update notice
Notice only used in four very old archives. (Note: I have nothing against Kurt Weber at all, I just don't see any point of keeping these around.) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Majorly  talk  01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator. —macyes: bot 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Kmweber recently left wikipedia.
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!align=left|Two days ago Ten pound hammer put up six of Kmweber's user subpages up for deletion:
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/In Progress/Karl Kae Knecht notes No policy mentioned, admits page is harmless.
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/3RR_loophole_update_notice No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion, nominator states they have nothing against Kmweber
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/In_Progress No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight WP:POINT mentioned, I don't understand how this user space page disrupts wikipedia.
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion. States that he is not targeting Kmweber
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Welcome template No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion. States that he is not targeting Kmweber
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Welcome template No policy reasoned mentioned for deletion.

These pages are no more worthy of deletion than some of the nominator's own user subpages:
 * User:TenPoundHammer/Awp-gray, User:TenPoundHammer/Stuff I like, User:TenPoundHammer/Country, User:TenPoundHammer/Put a little effort into it, User:TenPoundHammer/Writing better music articles


 * }
 * All of knweber's user subpages meet Subpage guidelines, even more than some of the nominator's own user pages (they are more directly related to wikipedia).


 * User:Majorly and User:Macy made sure to be the first and second editors to vote delete in all of these user pages.


 * Ten pound hammer supported the community ban of Kmweber: Kmweber community ban proposal (3rd), and also opposed his Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber
 * travb (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - very old and of no possible use. Terraxos (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is in userspace, and is no big deal. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 20:31, 7 January 2009 (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.