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. --Killiondude

User talk:RuleOfThe9th[edit]

(talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC) User is leaving WP --BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The user just failed an RfA by a long margin, perhaps they are switching accounts to not be recognised as such, and they didn't want it showing up in the log. — neuro 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except, now there's this MfD tying the accounts together for all posterity. Should we MfD this MfD after it closes? This plan seems poorly thought out. Gigs (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A poorly thought out plan is still a plan ;) — neuro 21:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is to be notified that I, once known as RuleOfThe9th, the user you guys were talking about, expect that this page is to be deleted, as no discussion will be posted on the talk page.--7107delicious (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extrapolating what I can from your difficult to read comment, user talk pages are not deleted just because you changed names and "no discussion will be posted on the talk page". Put ((retired)) at the top, redirect it to your current talk page, or just leave it blank, but it doesn't merit being deleted. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this what you call WP:SOCK, Neuro?--7107delicious (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? — neuro 19:30, 7 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.