Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DerrickMa5

 __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: Delete as this application was never submitted to be processed. — xaosflux  Talk 14:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DerrickMa5


DerrickMa5 does not have enough edits for adminship, and also, this RfA is improperly formatted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Premature nomination. Explain it to him, and offer to userfy. I see the user has received multiple template messages, but no welcome. This page is of little concern, I am more curious about the many revdels and hidden edit summaries on his talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly userfy - Number of edits don't technically qualify or disqualify someone from making a RfA. As for the improper formatting, this is where the userfication comes in. Someone just needs to explain how RfA works and point them to some relevant policy pages for them to read. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 05:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It was created over a year ago so I have no idea how this is premature. I'd say it's better to delete this in the small case the editor actually comes, improves and does later apply for adminship, it can be done seriously and without this as prejudice. It obviously wasn't copied onto the main RFA page (good for the editor rather than a quick fail) and I see nothing gained from userifying it unless there's some absolute desire to keep the edits around. Better we delete this and forget it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not the best to just "forget about it." We should still take the time to educate the user on policy and the such. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 09:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been a year since the editor tried that with no follow up so I think they realized they didn't get it. Either way, point them to WP:RFA so they get an idea that it's not that easy is fine too. Either way, I don't see a need to keep or userify this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2016 (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.