Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jake is a noob


 * 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 debate was speedy delete, G10 by The Anome (however, the content of the page added after The Anome speedied the original should be kept). User blocked by me. Blueboy96 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jake is a noob
Attack page with no other purpose

\ / (⁂) 11:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Durova Charge! 11:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and block user as blatant vandal and username violation. In fact, the speedy was already done.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deal with the username violation first. Otherwise, the history of other editors' comments to this user will be deleted, which does not seem to be a desirable result. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The offending comments have already been deleted...in fact, I'm not sure why this is still open (I'd NAC lose it, but, y'know, rules) --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. (1) Is there an issue over the idea of User:Jake is a noob having a username that is an insult to someone named Jake? (2) Are you really saying that we should speedily delete the notices that have been issued to User:Jake is a noob? If so, why? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what's going on now. User:Jake is a noob started out putting inappropriate comment on his own talk page. Then User:Backslash Forwardslash nominated the user talk page for deletion. Then the user talk page was speedily deleted, but this MfD was not closed. Then more notices were issued to User:Jake is a noob on his newly re-created user talk page. So the current deletion nomination is meant to refer to an earlier, since-deleted version of this page. I recommend that any admin seeing this close the discussion as no longer necessary, as the inappropriate comment has already been deleted and there are now appropriate notices to the user on the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2008 (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.