Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Bambenek


 * 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 Keep per policy and clear precedent. Xoloz 17:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/John Bambenek
This nomination was initially formatted incorrectly, real nomination appears immediately below. stillnotelf  is invisible  03:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone associated with this RFC was banned by the sysops acting in bad faith. It's no longer a relevant RFC, even though the article was deleted in bad faith, it met the requirements for a bio by several standards, and those acting to delete were simply people who disagreed with his political views. The point remains, the sysops violated additional policies and ran anyone who supported this article out of wikipedia and therefore the RFC is moot.


 * delete - per nom. -- 130.126.138.6 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No compelling reason to delete given; by default, documentation like this is maintained, even if community consensus judged it ill-thought. The record should remain for the sake of completeness. Xoloz 02:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a record, possibly speedy keep as a WP:POINTed nomination. --  stillnotelf   is invisible  03:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, RFCs are preserved as a record, WP:POINT applies here. --Ter e nce Ong 15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Alright listen, I'm getting highly pissed off every time I make a request it is "disrupting wikipedia", particularly when I use the processes in place exactly how they are intended. I'm withdrawing the RFC, can we just move on? -- 130.126.138.6 17:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a record, as per policy, but let's assume good faith on the part of the nominator. I see nothing here to suggest it wasn't nominated out of a genuine desire to help clean up.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per standerd practice for all failed RFC's Ydam 10:40, 26 May 2006 (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.