Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal (2nd nomination)

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal

(Timestamp of nomination copied here to prevent One bot misplacing this MfD in the log: 23:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC))

Previous MfDs: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Earth Cabal and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal

Included in the nomination are the following pages:

This page was created in 2007 and had become inactive for several years. In 2010, it was resurrected and moved to User:Hi878/Earth Cabal, where it was edited by several users who added themselves to the list. It was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Earth Cabal by Hi878 (talk · contribs), where there was an emerging consensus to delete, whereupon the user who moved the page returned it to its original name. The discussion was closed as speedy delete per {{db-userreq}}; however, the policy-violating page was not deleted.

In 2013, it was renominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal and closed as "no consensus" by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs), who responded to BDD (talk · contribs) at User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 62#MfD close of Earth Cabal:

Well, I had to disregard your opinion and Mangoe's, because you both argued that the article should be deleted per G4 and, yet, that's not an appropriate criterion, because the previous deletion was based on the page creator's request, as pointed out by Nyttend. So I was left with one delete and one keep; I thought I could relist the discussion, but, since it had been open for more than a month already and nobody seemed to pay much attention to it, I considered it pointless and closed as no consensus. If you believe I messed up, I have no objections to relisting it, though.

I believe Salvio giuliano's close is correct in that G4 does not apply because the original MfD was circumvented by the page mover's moving it back to its original title (User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal) and merely deleting the redirect (User:Hi878/Earth Cabal).

But I believe the page should be deleted per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#GAMES, as was the prevailing opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Earth Cabal, which was cut short by the move. I also endorse the nominator's statement at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal:

Why does this exist, as per the rules? It's not doing anything to help the encyclopedia, and they really are pointless. Also, things like this were deleted before. Preserving it isn't good for anytrhing, and we don't save similar stuff like the 'invisible cabal'. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 05:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I also endorse SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)'s comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Earth Cabal:

Delete, WP:NOTSOAPBOX/1. This is advocation of a political message not related to the project. The worth of the cause is irrelevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my previous quoted comment, which I just freshly re-concluded without recalling my previous comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I see this get deleted? Deja vu? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I closed it early, thinking it was long overdue, because the presence of a 22 April timestamp within the text of the nomination had caused a bot to misfile it under that date in the log. It was pointed out that it had not had the statutory 7 days, so I reopened it and put it in the right place in the log. Now the proper time has elapsed, so I can close it again - seems bureaucratic, but it's as well to keep to process. JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2013 (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.