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

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 02:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn

 * – (View MfD)

Well, I have G6'ed this but the G6 tag was removed, so now I have no choice but to send this RfA to MfD. The user has not responded to the question at User talk:Ronjohn, either. Anyway, given that the ORCP was closed as "not ready", I think that the RfA should be deleted for now, and if conditions improve, the RfA may be recreated. Either that, or userfy the RfA to User:Ronjohn/RfA. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC) I responded--Ron John (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw That's not true; you also had a choice to be patient and wait until the editor replied to the question on their talk page. They have not edited since it was asked, and in the mean time this page is not hurting anything.  Why you chose to start an MFD on something that probably only required a few days of polite patience is beyond me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - I would recommend replying to on your usertalk.  SQL Query me!  01:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, there is Requests for adminship/ronjohn from 2012. In case this (2020 RfA) is deleted, it should be redirected to 2012; with both titles being fully protected given the history of improper RfA transclusion by the candidate. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any reason given why this should be deleted, nor why it falls within the deletion policy, nor why anyone would want it deleted. Preserve history, talk page seems to be in use. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think RfA pages should be deleted as they are actual history records. This is a discussion also happening on WT:RFA, but I ultimately do not see a reason to delete them. However, I do think this page should be moved to /Ronjohn 2 and the other page to /Ronjohn as usernames may not start with lowercase letters. Naleksuh (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I concur with Floquenbeam. On an aside, how an Optional RfA candidate poll closes holds no sway over one's ability to engage in a RfA. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Preserve history. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page was created on Sept 20, 2020. User:Ronjohn is aware of the concerns about the viability of the RfA that were raised by other users at User talk:Ronjohn. Nevertheless, he has not blanked the page or requested its deletion in any other way. It is still quite possible that he intends to proceed with transcuding the RfA and I think he has the perfect right to do so. WP:ORCP is an optional procedure and its outcome is optional as well; the user is under no policy obligation to follow the advice of the informal poll conducted there (by the way, a single user participated in that poll prior to its closure Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 14). It is inappropriate and presumptuous to attempt to delete the page now, under these circumstances. I don't even think it is correct to say that the page belongs some sort of an archive for the purposes of preserving RfA historical records or something. What if User:Ronjohn still decides to go ahead and transclude this RfA? Just let it be. Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2020 (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.