- 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 debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Franknuttall
Vanity article masquerading as a userpage. User whom the page belongs to has not made any edits outside userspace except to WP:CHU. - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 05:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- WP:NOT#WEBHOST. This has been around for over a year; the user has no contributions. Mango juice talk 05:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The only purpose of this user is to maintain the userpage which is of no use to Wikipedia. Been around for a year so had time to make some edits. ANHL ( talk) 13:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The "vanity article" is a very simple introduction to the editor, pretty basic. It's correct he hasn't made logged-in edits. How in the world do you know if he's made no contributions? Many casual users IP edit. Why not let him stick around, what, exactly, does it cost us? I pretty much guarantee that if his user page is deleted, he won't edit. What's he done to deserve this? I'm astonished, in fact. He just made a request, March 16, to change user name to Frank Nuttall, to make it "clearer to find." Next day, this MfD. Sure, you could read that as an intention merely to use the page as some kind of ad. Or it could mean something else. AGF, folks. Now, trying to find out what is going on, I see that some IP editor blanked the subject page on the 16th. On the 17th, the nominator for this MfD, writing as a clerk for WP:CHU, made this comment:
-
Clerk note:
Stop writing about yourself. -
Jéské (
v^_^v
Detarder) 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Don't write about yourself on your user page? Applying
WP:COI to what you say about yourself on your user page? That would apply to everyone! This is strange indeed, and cause for concern.--
Abd (
talk) 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I only use those words if the editor asking for a name change has made no edits except for self-promotion/COI edits, as it tells me that they're not likely to be here except to advertise or use Wikipedia as a hosting solution. - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 06:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT#WEBHOST. User is unlikely to return. -- Core desat 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as spam, User:Abd's vigorous handwaving and wikilawyering notwithstanding. -- Calton | Talk 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wait. If the edits from March 2007 were the only edits, I'd go ahead and say delete... but they're not. This user was recently active, and suddenly nominating their userpage for deletion in that circumstance strikes me as biting a newcomer. The page isn't perfect, and we needn't host it if they're not going to contribute, but we should give them a chance (or two) before reaching such a conclusion. We can afford to host some random page for a few weeks or months until they're inactive and unlikely to care if we delete a page they've probably forgotten about. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The alternative would have been for me to move it and then delete the redirect, but I have concerns that the page would not meet WP:N if that were the case. Hence, I'm nominating it for deletion. And the "recent activity" stated by Luna is simply more edits to the userpage and a WP:CHU request so as to "Make name easier to find" (emphasis added). - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 09:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, with no spammy links or telephone numbers or any other evidence that this would benefit him commercially in any way I say keep... especially with the recent edits. gren グレン 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BITE. The user has recently become active again after a year's absence. Give him a chance, and see if he contributes to the encyclopedia. Deleting this page will only serve to drive him away, thereby eliminating a potential contributor. Walton One 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasoning in Wikipedia:Editors matter. Why don't we give him a chance rather than drive him away? Acalamari 21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Franknuttall
Vanity article masquerading as a userpage. User whom the page belongs to has not made any edits outside userspace except to WP:CHU. - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 05:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- WP:NOT#WEBHOST. This has been around for over a year; the user has no contributions. Mango juice talk 05:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The only purpose of this user is to maintain the userpage which is of no use to Wikipedia. Been around for a year so had time to make some edits. ANHL ( talk) 13:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The "vanity article" is a very simple introduction to the editor, pretty basic. It's correct he hasn't made logged-in edits. How in the world do you know if he's made no contributions? Many casual users IP edit. Why not let him stick around, what, exactly, does it cost us? I pretty much guarantee that if his user page is deleted, he won't edit. What's he done to deserve this? I'm astonished, in fact. He just made a request, March 16, to change user name to Frank Nuttall, to make it "clearer to find." Next day, this MfD. Sure, you could read that as an intention merely to use the page as some kind of ad. Or it could mean something else. AGF, folks. Now, trying to find out what is going on, I see that some IP editor blanked the subject page on the 16th. On the 17th, the nominator for this MfD, writing as a clerk for WP:CHU, made this comment:
-
Clerk note:
Stop writing about yourself. -
Jéské (
v^_^v
Detarder) 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Don't write about yourself on your user page? Applying
WP:COI to what you say about yourself on your user page? That would apply to everyone! This is strange indeed, and cause for concern.--
Abd (
talk) 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I only use those words if the editor asking for a name change has made no edits except for self-promotion/COI edits, as it tells me that they're not likely to be here except to advertise or use Wikipedia as a hosting solution. - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 06:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT#WEBHOST. User is unlikely to return. -- Core desat 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as spam, User:Abd's vigorous handwaving and wikilawyering notwithstanding. -- Calton | Talk 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wait. If the edits from March 2007 were the only edits, I'd go ahead and say delete... but they're not. This user was recently active, and suddenly nominating their userpage for deletion in that circumstance strikes me as biting a newcomer. The page isn't perfect, and we needn't host it if they're not going to contribute, but we should give them a chance (or two) before reaching such a conclusion. We can afford to host some random page for a few weeks or months until they're inactive and unlikely to care if we delete a page they've probably forgotten about. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The alternative would have been for me to move it and then delete the redirect, but I have concerns that the page would not meet WP:N if that were the case. Hence, I'm nominating it for deletion. And the "recent activity" stated by Luna is simply more edits to the userpage and a WP:CHU request so as to "Make name easier to find" (emphasis added). - Jéské ( v^_^v Detarder) 09:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, with no spammy links or telephone numbers or any other evidence that this would benefit him commercially in any way I say keep... especially with the recent edits. gren グレン 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BITE. The user has recently become active again after a year's absence. Give him a chance, and see if he contributes to the encyclopedia. Deleting this page will only serve to drive him away, thereby eliminating a potential contributor. Walton One 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasoning in Wikipedia:Editors matter. Why don't we give him a chance rather than drive him away? Acalamari 21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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.