Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario (3rd nomination)

 __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, closed early per WP:SNOW (narrowly interpreting WP:SKCRIT, none apply here, but this stands no chance of being deleted and is, as has been discussed below, an invalid nomination of a process page). (non-admin closure) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This old deletion discussion serve no purpose other than to be disruptive/offensive. Kaseng55 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This deletion discussion concerning something that occurred back in 2006 seems not to serve any useful purpose either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. No policy-based rationale for deletion exists here. We basically never delete historical discussions, even if they were opened in bad faith and contain naughty words. Especially so as the discussion at these AfDs forms the record as to why the user was blocked. Same rationale applies to above MfD as well. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a back room record, and deleting records is far worse than offensive expressions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per those above. We retain such records in perpetuity, unless they are grossly inappropriate in some manner. I did some cursory digging, but did not find anything off hand: do you know of anywhere where we document this sentiment? If not, perhaps it would be useful. Otherwise, those unfamiliar with the culture do not have anywhere to learn that (or be easily pointed to such as in cases like this)—perhaps a note at WP:PRJDEL would suffice. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going off a gut basis/lack of policy-based reason in the rationale. I had a look at PRJDEL just now and I would think old XfDs are covered by the second paragraph: "Policies, guidelines and process pages should not be nominated for deletion" (bold mine). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep No valid reason to delete this discussion per above comments.  Waddles  Gobbles 🍂 🦃 20:51, 23 November 2021 (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.