Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott


 * 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 debate was Speedied as an uncertified RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Theresa knott
Never certified RfC, filer has been banned three years so further worth as a DR tool is minimal, subject is a current user in good standing and this RfC would be deleted per regular RfC rules but for its age.  MBisanz  talk 14:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This should be speedied, per RfC rules. how do you turn this on  14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, in compliance with regular RfC rules. It seems this was just overlooked and should not have to come through MfD, simply deleted somewhat tardily per usual procedure. Risker (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an added note that three years ago there was a mega-discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive1 on deleting this page (which I think led to the creation of AN itself), which was why I figured a formal deletion process would be the best way to address it now.  MBisanz  talk 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three years ago? I really don't think that a long-banned user's uncertified RfC on a respected admin and former arbitrator are needed or wanted anymore. Have you asked Theresa for her opinion on this? how do you turn this on  14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did leave Theresa a note when I filed this. But there was so much noise in the AN archive that this should be held onto, that I figured a clean process would be best.  Maybe I'm wrong and some bolder admin will come along and speedy delete/close this MfD.  MBisanz  talk 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have speedied the page as an uncertified RfC. The procedural concerns of the nominator are understandable, but there is no value to keeping this debate open for five days and wasting everyone's time looking into the background of a four-year-old (non-) incident. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (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.