Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HansWobbe/Books/SrEd References

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. A consensus against deletion clearly exists at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:HansWobbe/Books/SrEd References

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grab bag deletion of discussion regarding a network of related pages created by banned User:HansWobbe. This is discussion is focused on his "lightly edited template pages", which I feel have a good case for deletion given they probably fall under WP:UP#GOALS. Most of these seem to have been in an effort ot make a Wikipedia book (a now depricated feature). I'm doing this so I don't have to open an MfD for all of these articles, and will list them below:

Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close or Keep -I have not reviewed the pages, but it is probable that some of them should be deleted and some should be kept. The editor has been indefinitely blocked, not banned, and the guidelines say that we normally keep files of departed or blocked users, who might return. (I think that I disagree with the guideline, but it is a plausible guideline, and should be respected.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Northamerica1000, please don’t do comment-free relisting. Relisting with a comment justifying the relist does nothing but shuffles the list. Old discussions get more attention procedurally by being in the backlog. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No clear reason for deletion. No harm in keeping, at worst. Unworthy nomination. An unworthy nomination grab bag without the nominator stating a clear position is a misuse of MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No suitable reason to delete. A user being blocked is not a proper reason for deletion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no reason to delete; agree with SmokeyJoe re. relisting. MfD is quiet (usually never no more than 15 noms at once in my experience), so relists are (usually) useless. Queen of ♡ | speak 06:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 1 - No real reason given for deletion. In fact, the nomination has the character of "I haven't reviewed these in detail, but am asking you other editors if you will review them and decide whether to delete them." Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.