Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panewithholder

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 SNOW Keep. (non-admin closure) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panewithholder

Frivolous, troll request for adminship by a user who has only a handful of edits and who is obviously a sockpuppet of someone, given their knowledge of what adminship is, and the nature of their answers to the questions. The user is now blocked for trolling. This page should be deleted as WP:DENY clearly applies. DL9C (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pft. Not even done on April fool's day. I don't see any controversy in this housekeeping― Padenton|✉ 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AN. ― Padenton|✉ 20:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important part of the involved editor's record - deleting it is tantamount to a whitewashing attempt. Sockpupeteers have a habit of returning, so we need to keep this evidence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very much agree with with Dodger67. When this editor is -re-identified under another name, this page will serve as part of the record of their behavior. BMK (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do we ever delete RfAs? I've seen them courtesy blanked, but I'm not aware that they are normally deleted. BMK (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked that question on AN, here. BMK (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be kept as part of the permanent, accessible record. Carrite (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this rationale works - it's like asking us to delete someone's talk page after they were blocked. This is part of the RFA history, ugly and otherwise and there's no reason to remove it. Some RFAs have been speedily deleted on the basis that they were pure trolling, disruptive or highly inappropriate, but never (as far as I know) after it was transcluded successfully and at least one other editor voiced their opinion on it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to WP:DENY is to let this die with all the other failed and WP:SNOW closed rfas. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it should be a lesson for new users about refraining from randomly requesting for adminship. No profane content and nothing mean-spirited. No reason to delete.--ABCDEFAD_{talk to me} 20:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep both as bad example and as evidence against the editor in case a ban is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (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.