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 Delete. Page deleted, recreated as {{indefblock}}, and temporarily protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Racecarguy360[edit]

Editor is using his talk page as a political blog/soapbox. Eeekster (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - That's a soapbox, I do believe. --Izno (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - This user was blocked with an expiry time of infinite. Eeekster (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - blocked user, WP:SOAP. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:SOAP and WP:UP#NOT. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove any soapbox content through normal editing. This is a user talk page. Deleting the article would mean deleting the entire history of the warnings issued to this user in the past (the recent past, like within the last week). Maybe the "delete" recommenders do, in fact, want to delete the entire edit history including warnings to the user, but I would like someone to confirm that they really want to do that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, recreate with warnings only and protect blatant abuse of the user talk page by a blocked user. JuJube (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note user keeps removing MfD tag. JuJube (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/salt: Um...It would be deleted in a couple of weeks regardless (see CAT:TEMP). No point in waiting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - This is the version that is being discussed, since then the page has been blanked and protected. Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I was on ym way over here and got distracted by shiny election results. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm neutral. Don't mind keeping it with the indef tag on there (protected because of abuse). Protonk (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DENY. MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel the same as Protonk, but I would also support JuJube's suggestion. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Use normal editing tools to encouragge user to only edit wikipedia for the benefit of wikipedia. Use deletion and blocking only as required, which seems to be the case here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just indef blocked an obvious sockpuppet, Hotel180 (talk · contribs). --Elonka 05:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Metropolitan90. There is no reason to delete the warnings and selective undeletion is just a unnecessary mess. Blank the page of the nonsense and move on. If he continues to misuse his talk page, protect it and tell him to email if he wants to be unblocked. If he were doing unblock requests in the middle of this nonsense, we wouldn't be deleting the page and cleaning it out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We can still remove the information just by blanking and protecting, there's no need to delete. --Elonka 06:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I hate to delete user talk pages, but this one has now already beed blanked. Collect (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2008 (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.