Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey

 __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. Number  5  7  11:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Bittergrey


This was never fully certified; Bittergrey has decided to retire after a two-year block. There's no reason to keep it around anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * By "never fully certified", do you mean "not all of the three certifiers of the RFC/U signed their names in the exact numbered spot that I thought they should"? If so, then you should withdraw the nomination, because RFC/U does not require use of that form (or any form) at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not where they signed (or didn't); it's how two of three backtracked on their attempt to show they had tried to resolve the dispute, or submitted evidence that suggests that they hadn't really tried. IRWolfie, now, later admitted his "attempt" to settle the dispute wasn't really an attempt after all. In the linked section, Saedon (now ) admitted he hadn't really heard BG's side of the story and seems to be distancing himself from the dispute at all. Yes, he throws up his hands at the end of the section, but doesn't seem to have tried very hard to resolve the dispute. Only WLU submitted adequate evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. Why is not being "certified" a reason to delete the page? I just don't understand. Why not archive? Ego White Tray (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It still shows up on Google searches (BG has told me since he retired that it comes up as the first thing under his username), and given that the factuality of the allegations was never considered independently, that it reached no formal result and was never formally listed as an open RFC, there's no need for us to keep it and every reason for us to delete it. The fact that the one unambiguous certifier, immediately below, has voted delete should be given considerable weight in closing this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, BG has apparently left so there's no point in keeping it. If BG ever returns, the page can always be resurrected anyway. Irrespective the technicalities, I think we can ignore the rules either way and simply get rid of it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No utility to project, therefore no need to archive. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:23, 17 June 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.