Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andy5190

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Keep. No compelling reason given to override normal RfA practice in this case. Xoloz 16:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andy5190

This was a self-nomination for adminship back in February, which as far as I can tell was never transcluded onto the main WP:RFA page and thus was never properly debated or closed. The nominator/subject submitted this to AfD here but it belongs on MfD instead. --Metropolitan90 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but close a b'cat needs to close this, but MfD is no place for RfAs. Computerjoe 's talk 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but close as Computerjoe; I left a message at Linuxbeak to the effect yesterday. Agathoclea 07:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closed and added to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. You don't need a bureaucrat for these ones. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the policy in regards to RfA's that don't make it onto the main page? Should they get deleted or do they remain here for historical purposes? DarthVad e r 09:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~It seems to me there's not much point in keeping them - it's not as if we're keeping a record of a discussion. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Having thought about it a bit more, there are a few comments on the RFA - if Andy5190 were to go for admin again, this page would be a useful piece of background information to have available, so I think we should keep it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Terenc e Ong 12:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a slightly abnormal example of a failed RfA. No compelling factors for deletion. Kimchi.sg 12:38, 9 June 2006 (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.