Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Real American


 * 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 but material should be provided to user upon request. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:The Real American
Wikipedia is not a place to store your made-up crap. AfDs on similar subjects were snowball-closed as delete yesterday. I've left a message on the users talkpage requesting he delete it with no response, although he was blocked for a month afterwards. I am confident he would not fulfill the request anyway though considering his reply to my AfD tags was along the lines of "I can do whatever I want, it does exist, I hate you". Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * delete 'nuff said! Agathoclea (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Actually keep & blank does appear to be the better option. Agathoclea (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Communicate politely with the new user The talk page is full of threats instead of offers to help (not even a "welcome" to be found). We have a newbie who made a couple of bad choices, and instead of seeking dialogue, we block him for a month, and the only page he can work on is being called for deletion?  Sure we can delete him, along with a huge percentage of new users, but we must also consder the wisdom of acting this way.  I know "wisdom" is not a valid reason here . Collect (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Communicate and if that is not successful in getting him to edit out the material or db-user it, blank with a note on his user page not to restore the blanked material. This way, he'll have history he can download to his hard drive at his convenience and use on another wiki.  Had he had email, I would've been okay with emailing him the wiki-code then deleting it.  Since he does not have email, do not delete. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I blocked this editor for a month for harassing other editors and posting hoax articles based on the nonsense on their user page. As such, they've got no aparant interest in communicating productively and the contents of the user page are not suitable for any Wiki I'm aware of - I doubt that even Uncyclopedia would want it. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "That I am aware of" - nothing says they aren't starting their own wiki as we speak, or won't start one next year. Destruction is so ... permanent.  I'm just not seeing the benefit of delete over blank here.  Maybe they'll register an email or grab it themselves and request db-user and we can be done with it, but until then, I don't see the benefit of outright deletion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that this editor's main interests on Wikipedia have been to start hoax articles and abuse the editors who delete them, the odds of them starting their own Wiki seems pretty tiny, and Wikipedia is not their web host if they are preparing to do so. It seems more likely that they'd use the user page content to create yet more hoax articles when the block ends. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Editor's behaviour leads me to believe this is the best course of action to avoid more hoaxery. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  10:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * regretful keep - Users are allowed a certain amount of leeway on their user pages, the page itself causes me less concern then the editing of the user. WP:UP comes to mind, but again - so many editing issues so early into Wikipedia is a problem.  I'm not sure if the user could be turned from the dark side of the force. — Ched (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete we shouldn't enable this kind of mischief. JuJube (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't appear this editor is interested in making serious contributions to Wikipedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pastor Theo. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per "Wikipedia is not the place to work out authority issues" (based on and  rather than the content of the user page). While users have a lot of leeway on their user pages, a user who contributes constructively to the encyclopedia should not be treated at the same level as one who deliberately introduces hoaxes into the mainspace and then insults those who remove them. Also, I see no reason to just blank the page; if the user wants to take the content off-wiki, any admin can temporarily restore the page. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:49, 18 February 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.