Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Legal Bans

 __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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Legal Bans

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

requests that this page be deleted for the following reason:

See Special:PermaLink/1088449813. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - How bizarre that we would have something like this in the first place.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There are over 500 failed proposals in Category:Wikipedia failed proposals, should we delete all of the bad ideas that have been proposed? We can easily revision delete the few versions of the page which included the names of individuals. And the page was created by an editor who chose the unfortunate username of User:Sockpuppet, permitted by WP:SOCK and quickly changed it to User:Heart Attack. But they were never identified as a sock or ever blocked as a sockpuppet or sockmaster so the name might have all been a bad joke. Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Liz No, of course we shouldn't delete every failed proposal and that isn't at all what I have suggested here, playing that card is just a strawman argument. I have nominated this specific failed proposal for deletion because the content in the page history has BLP/Attack page/Oversight implications and I don't view collecting a public name and shame list of random non-notable sex offenders and criminals with no discernible link to Wikipedia as an acceptable use of project space. The proposed policy here is not possible to implement due to us not requiring editors to verify their identity, and numerous people on the talk page have suggested it should be deleted, hence why I nominated it for discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With the actions of Voice of Clam, the offensive content has been revdel'd. I don't see why deletion was the first avenue for a page history issue anyway, but the important thing is that the page is now a sanitized example of a failed proposal. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  11:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I have revdel'ed the offending content in the history. — Voice of Clam 22:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The page has sat dormant for 15 years, is correctly marked as a failed proposal, and the offending content has been revdel'ed. I see no reason for deletion as that is not what we do with failed proposals.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Mark as essay - now that the offending content has been correctly RevDelled (thank you, ), the remaining content can survive as an essay. However, I strongly suggest that its tone be softened. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as a failed proposal which should be kept for archival purposes and whose offensive content has been revdel'd. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - after the revdel, nothing here remains deletable casualdejekyll  21:21, 26 May 2022 (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.