Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover

 __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. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover


I have requested deletion of this page because, even though it is not on the main nomination page; it was something embarrassing I did when I was not thinking realistically about the passing/failing rate of the nominees who had nominated themselves before me and my qualifications for it. I am also afraid that if I would ever want to be an administrator (although it would be very unlikely) or a higher position, people who oppose me could use this against me. I believe the reason I am requesting deletion is also considered a variant of the right to vanish, even though I am not leaving Wikipedia. Thebirdlover (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, and very strongly do I think so. Over many years, the community has held that applications for new roles and positions in the project must be made in public, and that a record of those applications should be kept. Just as unsuccessful RFAs are never deleted, so too should MedCom nominations (as well as ArbCom election candidacies, requests to join the BAG, and so on) be kept. The Right To Vanish is absolute and final. If that is not a factor at play, this and any similar pages need to be kept. AGK  [•] 20:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep out of process deletion. This is not related to RTV. Nobody will use this against you, but don't try to cover it up, which looks bad. Andrevan@ 20:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Wikipedia needs more, not less, transparency. Be careful of the Streisand effect. By nominating this page for deletion, you're only drawing more attention to it.--SGCM (talk)  20:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I feel that my reasoning for putting under right to vanish is valid because I feel it has information that I do not want the public knowing which is what that is basically used for (even if I am asking for it differently than the norm because I am not leaving). I will not request for the page ever to be recreated again so it will be an absolute and final deletion. To me, I look like an inexperienced, ignorant, newbie which is not the case now and people may misinterpret it as being my current editing style. And I do want Wikipedia to be non-transparent, just not in a way where one decision is kept up for people to possibly see for many years. I personally hate transparency in relation to LTA pages or old talk pages of blocked users. It doesn't really faze me if this publicizes the page more briefly, if it get's deleted. --Thebirdlover (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - everyone's early history is open to all. I made especially stupid mistakes when I started out; your nom was not a stupid mistake, it was just far too early. Ironically, the reasoning behind this MfD serves more harm than the MedCom nom ever would have (and it wouldn't have). --Xavexgoem (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2012 (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.