Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Pelican Shit

 __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 and mark as historical. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Long-term abuse/Pelican Shit


WP:LTA is for people who cause extensive problems over long periods of time, so that we can more easily track their actions. According to this page, Mr. Pelican Shit died in 2012, so he's not going to continue disrupting anything. Since don't need to track his edits in order to catch future disruption, this page isn't at all useful anymore, as far as I can see. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 
 * I think it's fine if we just archive it with historical. As far as I can see, it doesn't do any harm remaining an outdated LTA case either, even if it's not technically one. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 01:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment We keep SPI pages for thousands of accounts that are blocked and no longer active. I can see marking this as historical but we have no idea how many of the thousands of blocked users are deceased. We keep user pages for Missing Wikipedians who haven't been active for many years. Liz  Read! Talk! 14:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark historical/archived per Liz. We are able to keep these LTAs about deceased people and missing Wikipedians, so I don't see how this one is any different.  Konveyor   Belt  16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Liz, Konveyor Belt: I think you're missing the point of this nomination. The alleged page in question documents a deceased individual who originally did not meet the criteria for being put on the LTA list and did not abuse Wikipedia in the long-term. Though he may have abused Wikipedia in the past, for short vandalism sprees, there's no evidence that this is an actual LTA case. I do however agree with keeping and marking historical a case in the Wikipedia records so future Wikipedians who investigate these reports could refer back to cases like these in times of need. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (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.