Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:37.172.90.185

 __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. The page is blanked at the time of closure, and will remain so, but there's clear agreement it should not be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:37.172.90.185

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I feel like sometimes some things here don't make any sense at all. This was an attack page that was eligible for G10, so I tagged it. I stumbled across it while searching for remnants of a cross-wiki spam and clean it up. It had "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person" with nothing else to "revert to". As WP:G10 says, "These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to.", it's a page started with a "I pity you" summary and with insults like "fake wannabe" directed at someone with their real name (well, I shouldn't quote the insults but what can you do when you are forced to open a MfD for it when it could just be speedy deleted without hassle). There is really no reason to keep such a page that only had insults, "material intended purely to intimidate a person", directed at someone even with their name, this is all what G10 is about. So I was baffled when it was rejected with a little bit harsh edit summary I felt, took it personally (my bad), added it again by saying not liking me should not be a reason to keep such an attack page (my bad) but the reasons I get for keeping it are like "who's going to find it" (well, I found it, didn't I?), or "it was posted years ago". Being posted a few years ago is not a reason to keep an attack page with insults directed at someone with their real name, it was noticed now and should be deleted, and "nobody would find it" is not a good reason either. I found it randomly while searching for something, so it can be found after all. I don't think there's any need to try to find a good reason here to delete an attack page with insults, G10 is a pretty good reason already, I don't see any reason to insist on keeping it, it serves nobody. Tehonk (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you please refrain from reverting a blanking of a page with bad content, regardless of the circumstances? This is the second time I've seen you do it. We can discuss deletion without you readding the bad content. When you do that, you take responsibility for this content. It's not the same whether something has been blanked or not.—Alalch E. 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (with the name being redacted in the talk page and article the IP edited if it meets the requirements to do so, of course the name came from the IP's own edits. So per Revision deletion/examples and WP:OSPOL probably not). Although this was clearly included attacks (and the editor should have been at least warned at the time for it), I'm not sure it meets G10 as it is not "purely to harass or intimidate a person" as it was also a real warning to the IP who had added inappropriate content. The warning of the IP should remain in the history. As contra your earlier MfD, it is actual talk page content albeit an attack contained within it. Skynxnex (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as not an appropriate use of MFD, with Salmo trutta to the nominator. This appears to be a request to delete a talk page because an editor insulted another editor on the page.  Liz had blanked it, but the nominator then restored it to get rid of it differently.  It would have been almost reasonable for the nominator to send an email to the oversighters to request suppression, which might result in redaction.  But unblanking the insulting text in order to request that it be deleted was absurd.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Blank: This feels like an example of the Streisand effect. Let's just blank this page, and put Blanked IP talk at the top. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)&#91;Citation not needed at all; thank you very much&#93; 12:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. The issue appears to be dead as both participants are long gone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2024 (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.