Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Random deleting in Wikipedia

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. From the comments I take that userfication or recreation might be OK if the user is unblocked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Random deleting in Wikipedia

No need to keep this draft. Pretty obviously WP:NOT violations. Java Hurricane 15:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He was a bit angry after I reverted some of his edits (which he referred to as "deleting"). Then he created this. --MrClog (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly delete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a reasonable user_essay. If the user gets unblocked, userfy it if he asks. The fact that he put a user opinion in a new draft page says that newcomers don't understand stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with SmokeyJoe: If the editor is ever unblocked, userfication on request, or re-creation in userspace, would be fine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not randomly, because suckpoppetry is not random. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly delete. per Newyorkbrad's random but very convincing sock argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2020 (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.