Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples

The entries in the third column are themselves violations of what is in the second column under Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples#Examples of RevDelete usage on this page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious – On that page, I see "emergency@wikimedia.org". Is WMF also lobbying for police powers or something? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GeoffreyT2000, what the heck? Examples are not violations. I could tell an editor asking about when revdel is used that something like, "I'm going to kill you tonight. I figured out where you live and I'm going to kill you." is a revdel candidate and my post wouldn't be revdelled. RadioKAOS, see WP:VIOLENCE about use of that email address. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
obvious keep As someone who helped write these examples and a member of the oversight team for five-and-a-half years, I can assure that when crafting these examples we were careful to avoid actually doing anything here that require us to come and suppress it later, because that would be just plain stupid. If you were even remotely correct, you are of course in the wrong place, you should take this request off-wiki and email the oversight team.

Just so you understand, and to hopefully prevent this from happening again in the future,

The "copyright violation" is from A Tale of Two Cities, for which the copyright has long expired.
The "I'm going to kill you" remark would need to be directed at a living person, either an article subject or another WP user.
The "private information" is the address of The Simpsons house along with some even more obviously fake information.

Need I go on or is that sufficiently clear to allow you to withdraw this nomination? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly - the "violations" are, respectively, a "copyvio" of Dickens, a "death threat" directed at nobody in particular coming from nobody in particular, a referral to a "shock site" that doesn't actually mention or link to any particular shock site, and the "outing" of someone who clearly doesn't exist. There's nothing remotely harmful here. Hut 8.5 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because these examples have the style of suppressible content but are not themselves actually suppressible. Julyo (talk) 00:00, 6 December 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.