Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora/page1

 __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. ✗ plicit  14:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora/page1

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Old historical mediation from 2007, not needed for any purpose that I know of. Andrevan @ 12:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - That isn't a valid reason to delete something. --🌈WaltCip - (talk)  14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as historical. We don't delete old historical XfDs, arbcom cases, dismissed ANI reports, sockpuppet investigations, etc. Just because the case is not ongoing doesn't mean it must be deleted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the previous editors, but is there a reason why the mediator wants to delete this case file? I am just cynical enough to wonder whether the nominator has a reason that we shouldn't support (as opposed to no reason).  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * it was a mediation involving, as I recall, Sexual abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Miami. I know nothing about the topic, it was a difficult mediation and I didn't really get anywhere with it. I have no connection to the case or the participants. As to why I nominated these for deletion, as I recall, back in the day, we did sometimes delete privileged mediations, but it's been quite some time and the MEDCOM is long since defunct. As to why pragmatically, I thought, perhaps naively, that John Favalora or his family (I don't know anything at all about them other than what I learned from the mediation) might not want this thing kicking around about him forever. I also kind of don't care to be associated with it, to be honest, but if you want to WP:SNOW close these as keep, I guess them's the breaks. Andrevan @ 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, now that at least makes sense, deleting it essentially to WP:OVERSIGHT. But I don't believe MFD is the correct venue for that; you'd either want to speak to ArbCom or the Oversight team. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  16:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Am aware of oversight, but I thought simply deleting it would be easier, since it really shouldn't be too controversial. But that's fair. It's also on me for not really explaining it well. From my understanding, OS won't OS it unless there's a specific reason under the OS policy. Andrevan @ 19:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about I just blank the pages and snow close these. If anyone really wants it they can find it in the history. Sounds ok or no to the blanking idea? Andrevan @ 21:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blanking old resolved or obsolete user matters is perfectly suitable for blanking by someone who understands what it was all about. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2022 (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.