Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair

 __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The result of the discussion was  Withdrawn The community clearly does not share my view that this is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair
Violates WP:UP. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is nothing to discuss, its over move on, continual trawling it over and over is more trouble that it is worth. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination alleges that the page contains "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons". With the possible exception of the insinuation against ArbCom, who can suck it up, this is manifestly not the case. Read it over; it is an attempt to thread events together, not an assault on the dearly departed. If editors want to descend into self-parody and paranoia in their own userspace, so be it; it keeps this nonsense off the project pages. Nominating this for deletion will achieve nothing but further fuel the hitherto dying embers of the drama fire.  Skomorokh   16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think Giano is totally going about this the wrong way, but that's not a reason for deletion. WP:UP is not meant to suppress discussion about key wiki-political events such as when an arbitrator resigns under scandalous circumstances. This MfD looks like an attempt to draw attention to the page; I don't think that's a good idea. Hans Adler 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's unhelpful, unlikely to get any useful response, and is clearly flogging a dead horse. However, shutting Giano down is only going to add fuel to his conspiracy theories over this whole episode, so why not just leave it be?-- K orr u ski Talk 17:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per arbcom participation on page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Korruski says, trying to gag Giano just provides fuel for the conspiracy theorist. From the outset, ArbCom failed to deal with this issue in an appropriate manner, and trying to sweep the mess under the carpet by deleting Giano's page is not the way to go. Jimmy Pitt   talk  18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite all the negative publicity it is a sincere attempt to clear the air and set future precedents and protocols on the event of such a situation arising again.  Giacomo   18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Drama mongering nomination Vodello (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is a branch off of Giacomo's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy: Obviously. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep time to close this now. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:12, 9 November 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.