Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rimas063/norfolk southern

 __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. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Rimas063/norfolk southern


Stale sandbox. Untouched since 2011, user has not edited at all since 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another clumsy, inaccurate nomination TPH! Delete as an unattributed content fork of Norfolk_Southern_Railway.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What was inaccurate about the nomination? Or is that supposed to be sarcasm? I'm confused. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate is that any part of the nomination constitutes a reason for deletion, and inaccurate, like a wayward arrow, in that TPH missed an unambiguous reason for deletion. Irritated because he does this a lot. It's like he has his own mis-calibrated nomination bot. (Theres an unconcluded rfcu on his poor nominations, somewhere). At least he mostly only nominates bad pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, everything he wrote is accurate: the subpage is a stale draft article (perhaps the term "sandbox" isn't the ideal one to use, if you want to be pedantic); it was last edited in 2011 by an IP; user Rimas063 did indeed last make an edit in 2008. That he missed an additional reason seems irrelevant: the reasons he did give are sufficient for deletion of a stale draft article in any case. No need for ad-hominem statements in deletion forums, please. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is not a stale draft. "Inactive editor" is absolutely not a reason for deletion, we don't delete userspace pages due to lack of recent edits by the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I'll drop the point since it's adding nothing to the discussion, but I still stand by my opinion that this nomination statement, taken as a whole, is entirely valid in itself. — This, that and the other (talk)  08:09, 12 July 2013 (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.