Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Geo.plrd 3/Daniel.Bryant's notes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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The result of the debate was Nomination Withdrawn and Speedy Keep  This page is used within context of a nomination for MedCom. Its inclusion verbatim into the nomination page is fait accompli in the case of a successful deletion. It was not my intention to change the context of the oppose vote or hide the actions of the subject of this page. After consideration of the pages context and use, and the merge; this nomination is withdrawn. Navou  banter  /  contribs  06:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee/Nominations/Geo.plrd 3/Daniel's notes
This approaches me as an attack page. I do not see how this helps anything. Thanks in advance, Navou   banter  /  contribs  17:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Given the role of the author, he should be given wide latitude in these matters. --After Midnight 0001 18:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the authors role?  Navou   banter  /  contribs  20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Mediation Committee. --After Midnight 0001 20:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the context. However it appears that its only purpose is to disparage the subject.  That appears covered under WP:CSD.  Navou   banter  /  contribs  20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment consider the context of the creation of this page - in the process of a MedCom nominationm and it certanly becomes acceptable. If all of these observations had been written on a nomination page (of any sort), I doubt that deletion whould ever be suggested.  It's quite appropriate to keep the page for posterity. Mart inp23  19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the page now seems to just be "sitting there", hence why I can't express a deifnate opinion. Mart inp23 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, it is within my latitude as a Member of the Mediation Committee to create a notes page when exercising my power as a MC member to vote on a nomination. What would be the difference if I copied the content on there and posted it on the main Geo.plrd 3 nomination? You can't delete that, because it'd be like deleting an RfA because it failed abysmally. And I'll let it be known that if this is deleted, I will simply be merging the content back to the main nomination page. So what's the point, other than to abolish a single subpage?  Daniel Bryant  21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, I understand that, but perhaps merging the summarized version into the request for membership using diffs would be better. It just appears this pages sole purpose is csd g10.  Navou   banter  /  contribs  22:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My oppose of Geo.plrd in his third MedCom nomination was based on all the content, not just a summary. I have no plans of altering the comment(s) that stood when the nomination was rejected, whether this be in a summary form or no subpage.  Daniel Bryant  23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, in case anyone gets confused about the original context of my oppose (and how the link was used), see this edit for the change.  Daniel Bryant  23:53, 7 April 2007 (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.