Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NatDemUK

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 for now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NatDemUK

Declined G10 because the most offensive content had been removed some time ago by FT2 and not reinserted by this user. Referring here for a full community discussion on the appropriateness of the views espoused here and their relationship to our user page content policies. I am not taking a position on the deletion per se, just opining that it belongs in the community space, rather than in a speedy. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - blatant POV, but as nom said the most offensive content has been removed. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Kayau. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's currently a discussion of whether this editor should be banned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban proposal (User: NatDemUK) Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the page is kept and the user not banned, we should REVDEL the offensive content out of the history. Exxolon (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless banned - it is rather offensive, but still better than hidden agenda.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If he gets banned, this shouldn't be deleted because they need to put up a banned message on it. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 02:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless banned - now the most offensive content has been removed, I think what remains is basically acceptable. I don't much like this sort of userpage, but as long as he's simply describing his views rather than actively campaigning for them, I don't think WP:SOAP applies. Robofish (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User has not been banned at this point, and thus positing such is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing egregious that I see, to be sure, and, I suggest, the page in itself is not sufficient to call for a ban. Collect (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by now, I do not see how could deletion help and the offensive content is already removed. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 20:15, 31 July 2010 (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.