- 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 delete. JohnCD ( talk) 08:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Giordano xx
The content of this user page is the article Mathematical calculations in cake that was deleted and later userfied. This is now a fake article, and the user hasn't edited since June 2006. Lugia2453 ( talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Userspace is not for indefinitely hosting deleted content. MER-C 04:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It doesn't look like a real article (which is why the misguided mainspace piece was deleted), but it's harmless on a userpage. IMHO, discussing these sorts of pages isn't really the best use of the community's limited time and effort. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:FAKEARTICLE, and also a confusing mishmash of misinformation. — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strongest possible delete per WP:DENY. Vandalism is no laughing matter. Enshrining pages such as this one (linked from one of several deletion log entries for Mathematical calculations in cake) in WP:DAFT just encourages more vandals to flock to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the page is "extensive unrelated content" which must be deleted. Wikipedia has many naïve readers, and the general writing style of this user page, along with its use of standard section headings such as "Shockness", could easily confuse them. Who knows what could happen, if someone followed the advice in this fake article. Even if no one else notices it, Giordano xx could come back and try again to insert this into the article space. So often these pages are just marked with {{ Humour}} or {{ NOINDEX}}; when that happens, the vandals have won. — rybec 09:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 02:35, 2 January 2014 (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 discussion was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 08:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Giordano xx
The content of this user page is the article Mathematical calculations in cake that was deleted and later userfied. This is now a fake article, and the user hasn't edited since June 2006. Lugia2453 ( talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Userspace is not for indefinitely hosting deleted content. MER-C 04:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It doesn't look like a real article (which is why the misguided mainspace piece was deleted), but it's harmless on a userpage. IMHO, discussing these sorts of pages isn't really the best use of the community's limited time and effort. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:FAKEARTICLE, and also a confusing mishmash of misinformation. — Anne Delong ( talk) 23:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strongest possible delete per WP:DENY. Vandalism is no laughing matter. Enshrining pages such as this one (linked from one of several deletion log entries for Mathematical calculations in cake) in WP:DAFT just encourages more vandals to flock to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the page is "extensive unrelated content" which must be deleted. Wikipedia has many naïve readers, and the general writing style of this user page, along with its use of standard section headings such as "Shockness", could easily confuse them. Who knows what could happen, if someone followed the advice in this fake article. Even if no one else notices it, Giordano xx could come back and try again to insert this into the article space. So often these pages are just marked with {{ Humour}} or {{ NOINDEX}}; when that happens, the vandals have won. — rybec 09:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 02:35, 2 January 2014 (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.