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 speedy keep. Withdrawn with no delete !votes. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns.Senatrix (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn Senatrix (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What BLP concerns are their about this AfD which would require its deletion. It is very rare for an AfD to be deleted - so the nominator needs to explain what the problem is. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's not at all uncommon for AFDs to be deleted if they concern Biographies of Living Persons because such AFDs often contain negative comments about the person's notability or lack thereof or about other facets of their life. Senatrix (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What comments in particular are BLP concerns almost 4 years after this AfD was closed? I would prefer for specific comments to be removed rather than the entire AfD be removed, and in this specific case I can see no comments (beyond "not notable enough") which could even remotely be considered BLP concerns. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Claiming "BLP concerns" is quite an allegation, but you provide no proof. Keep. Grsz¹¹ 18:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't see any BLP concerns in this particular AfD. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Given the history of the article, I highly doubt there were any BLP concerns in it as it was watched by like a hawk and carefully manicured. What is your interest in all this, if I might ask? Seems peculiar for an account created Oct 8th´s first action to be on a nomination for deletion page and to be so involved. Have you edited under another name? Why would you specifically cite that he was unnotable in one deletion discussion, and then use your statement to justify deleting the page? I´m not sure I understand all of this flurry of activity from new accounts and IP address in the area in Canada. Am I missing something?--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're misreading my contribution history. this was my first edit. It wasn't made on October 8 and it's not a nomination for deletion. Your point about the history of the article is irrelevent since this isn't a request to delete the article but a request to delete the AFD. Senatrix (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is relevant is, why would you make a comment on the most recent nomination for deletion, and then use it as justification for deleting the page?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (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.