Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SB Johnny/List of fictional expletives

 __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: keep. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:SB Johnny/List of fictional expletives


Qualifies for deletion as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The main namespace article was deleted multiple times; see the page log for more information. North America1000 03:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless use of user space. This is a case for frigging IAR, if need be. The page title reflects a common misuse of the word "expletive," but that is a detail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete. This is the sort of thing that historically would have gone to BJAODN. bd2412  T 11:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. If someone wants to keep a userspace copy of an article that was deleted through the normal process, that's absolutely fine, especially when they've taken the time to note that fact at the top. —  Scott  •  talk  12:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh. So we have WP:UP, but that is concerned with content forking and attribution - neither of which are concern here since the mainspace article is deleted (no risk of content forking) and the histories have been merged (attribution requirement met). So keep as a valid use of user space (a "small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material", to be precise) that happens to look a lot like a guideline violation. VQuakr (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would feel differently if SB Johnny were feverishly devoting a significant portion of his editing time to updating and maintaining this, or if he was hoarding piles of other deleted stuff for fun. But I dunno, I can hardly fault him for hanging on to one wonderfully stupid thing as a museum piece. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well within reasonable leeway.  Humour, of value to human editors.  Editors matter.  BJAODN was an idea with flawed implementation, too many things were too easily tossed into it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2017 (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.