Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Incorrect Deletions (2nd nomination)




 * 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  Keep something lame from CBW 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kmweber/Incorrect Deletions
Contains only a red link and nothing else. Only content was an article that was "saved for posterity" in violation of GFDL. (Note: In no way am I calling out Kmweber or his opinions on inclusionism; I simply see no reason to keep this.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * keep See also Articles for deletion/709 Brown. The page the redlink pointed to was deleted with an incorrect reason, and was a copy of 709 Brown to clarify what the GFDL problem was. I agree with deletion of 709 Brown,  but a reference to it is worth keeping if it is important to the editor, it is not harmful either.  I have one of these lists of deleted stuff that could make a come back at User:Graeme Bartlett/goodstuff.  It is a prompt of things to work on at some point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable use of one's userspace.  Nothing for anyone else to be concerned about.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Violates no policies nor guidelines I can find for userspace. Collect (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see an issue here. Gigs (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2010 (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.