Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bjkun16

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 delete . It's pretty clear that there is strong consensus to remove all those pages without having to wait another five days. As for other pages, they should be considered on a case by case basis although it seems clear from this discussion and the one at WT:RFA that consensus is that in most cases G6 applies. Regards So Why 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bjkun16 et al.

RfA subpages that are completely malformed (i.e. no use of the template), have never been transcluded on the main RfA page & almost all created by users with only a few edits.

I'm aware that we usually keep RfAs around as part of an editor's history, but there is also precedent (1, 2, 3) for deleting very early/entirely malformed ones. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 01:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Clearly no need, can cleanup as G6. Hhkohh (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all there is precedent for this and its just housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All seem to be junk or test creations, no serious cases of requesting adminship. I posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Deletion_of_all_malformed_test_and_junk_RfA_subpages. I disagree with G6 being used for these pages. Instead, I think all can be either WP:CSD#G2-ed, or userfied without a redirect if more than a mere test. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't know these existed, but, as long as an uninvolved editor (or the closing admin) will verify these are all of that form, I support deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Yeah, these should be deleted, per power~enwiki, provided, of course, all of these are junk or tests. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 01:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those that are simply an embarrassment. They can be restored if the contributor re-applies. Deb (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I looked through and while most of them (at least the ones with actual words) don't seem to be tests per se, they don't seem to be active or useful either. Some can be G2'd, some can be G5'd, some may be G6-able (Sbf in particular), but they should still all probably be deleted. However, I'd be uncomfortable with the conclusion of precedent that SmokeyJoe presents at WT:RfA, and still prefer those not falling under an obvious CSD to be on a case-by-case basis at MfD after letting the author know in case they want it to be moved to their userspace. ansh 666 07:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I looked at about half of these, and none seem the least bit serious. This is routine housekeeping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per housekeeping. This is what I do anyway when I come across such an attempted RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete all. These serve no purpose, and are not part of the RfA record. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like a G6. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:56, 18 June 2018 (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.