- 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Llooke11
This is an attempt to have the content deleted, however I am not seeking prejudice against the creation of a proper article on the subject.
This page is a userfied article. It is not encyclopedic and appears to me to be more an espousal of dogma and opinion than an encyclopedic article. Perhaps great stuff for a church pamphlet but this is not for an encyclopedia.
It contains gems such as "==FYI:== The majority of Satan’s influence on man is by his use of spiritual power directly upon man by his people". It does not belong on Wikipedia, it does not even belong in user space.
Wikipedia is not a soap box. The reason I am going to MfD is because the user has already made it clear they don't consent to its removal. Chillum 22:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Abstain as involved party. However, this is not at all what I envisioned when I invited the user to work an article on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in his user space. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- While I am all for building articles in the userspace, and I have no objection to this particular topic, I would say a better result would come from starting over than it would from working off of this. Chillum 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete.
This is in fact an appropriate usage of userspace per the guideline. But if none of the information contained therein can be used to create an actual article in the namespace I'd say blank it and have them start over. Syn ergy 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)I'm satisfied. Syn ergy 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- If this was an encyclopedic article in progress then I would agree, but this seems to be a work of original research. Chillum 22:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Should the MfD be expanded to include User:Llooke11/Blasphemy against the holy spirit? — C.Fred ( talk) 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Purely polemical, which the policy Synergy points out prohibits. Yes, it should be included.
Chillum 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I am going off of a cursory glance, but one of the headers indicate that much of it is evidence or sources for the article. One of which appears to be the Church of Satan. While this is in the ballpark of my area ( Occult), I'd say an article could be created in the future, but most of this is just garbage. But I doubt its all OR. Syn ergy 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well if all "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" are removed from it(per Wikipedia:User page), and if there is anything left afterwards, then I will withdraw this nomination. But to be honest, I think you would have a few stray verbs left looking for a noun to make a sentence with if we removed all polemical statements. Chillum 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note The user in question was just blocked for 2 days (vandalism). Enigma message 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete - Some things in here could cause civility issues, considering the views of others that are involved. Perhaps having a userbox that says 'I am a Christian' would mean the same if you looked deep into it, but it's certainly not explicit. Asenine 09:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to be a pain, but could you point out these civility concerns?
Syn
ergy 10:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there are some rather sweeping condemnations of cultures in the document. Such as "blasphemers of the Holy Spirit will exist within the more popularized, seemingly less malevolent, forms of Satanism like Wicca"(Wicca is not Satanism), "Irish Travelers are a nomadic, gypsy clans who live in a few organized colonies in solitary seclusion (e.g. Aiken, GA) and blaspheme the Holy Spirit as a clan tradition", "Occultists who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, who sell their soul for eternity to be granted unabated Satanic empowerment in this age represent .5% of the population of the United States"... There is plenty in there to be offended by. Regardless, even if it was not offensive, Wikipedia is not the place to espouse ones religious beliefs. Chillum 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:SOAP. These are policy, and also apply to userspace. Sandstein 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete, though I am loath to suggest this for a userfied article. The main purpose for userfying articles is for items either directly related to the editor or articles which are in the process of getting to an encyclopedic nature but would currently fail AfD. I doubt that any article which claims either explicitly or implicitly to be the one and only truth on a religious matter is never going to pass Wikipedia's WP:RANT standards. Grutness... wha? 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delay action for at least a few days. I am in correspondence with the author on unblock-en-l about issues with the content and his behavior. I'd like to discuss the situation with him further before any action is taken on the article. -- Chris (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- What discussion could lead to this content being acceptable? Chillum 15:19, 29 July 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Llooke11
This is an attempt to have the content deleted, however I am not seeking prejudice against the creation of a proper article on the subject.
This page is a userfied article. It is not encyclopedic and appears to me to be more an espousal of dogma and opinion than an encyclopedic article. Perhaps great stuff for a church pamphlet but this is not for an encyclopedia.
It contains gems such as "==FYI:== The majority of Satan’s influence on man is by his use of spiritual power directly upon man by his people". It does not belong on Wikipedia, it does not even belong in user space.
Wikipedia is not a soap box. The reason I am going to MfD is because the user has already made it clear they don't consent to its removal. Chillum 22:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Abstain as involved party. However, this is not at all what I envisioned when I invited the user to work an article on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in his user space. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- While I am all for building articles in the userspace, and I have no objection to this particular topic, I would say a better result would come from starting over than it would from working off of this. Chillum 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete.
This is in fact an appropriate usage of userspace per the guideline. But if none of the information contained therein can be used to create an actual article in the namespace I'd say blank it and have them start over. Syn ergy 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)I'm satisfied. Syn ergy 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- If this was an encyclopedic article in progress then I would agree, but this seems to be a work of original research. Chillum 22:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Should the MfD be expanded to include User:Llooke11/Blasphemy against the holy spirit? — C.Fred ( talk) 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Purely polemical, which the policy Synergy points out prohibits. Yes, it should be included.
Chillum 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I am going off of a cursory glance, but one of the headers indicate that much of it is evidence or sources for the article. One of which appears to be the Church of Satan. While this is in the ballpark of my area ( Occult), I'd say an article could be created in the future, but most of this is just garbage. But I doubt its all OR. Syn ergy 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well if all "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" are removed from it(per Wikipedia:User page), and if there is anything left afterwards, then I will withdraw this nomination. But to be honest, I think you would have a few stray verbs left looking for a noun to make a sentence with if we removed all polemical statements. Chillum 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note The user in question was just blocked for 2 days (vandalism). Enigma message 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete - Some things in here could cause civility issues, considering the views of others that are involved. Perhaps having a userbox that says 'I am a Christian' would mean the same if you looked deep into it, but it's certainly not explicit. Asenine 09:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to be a pain, but could you point out these civility concerns?
Syn
ergy 10:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there are some rather sweeping condemnations of cultures in the document. Such as "blasphemers of the Holy Spirit will exist within the more popularized, seemingly less malevolent, forms of Satanism like Wicca"(Wicca is not Satanism), "Irish Travelers are a nomadic, gypsy clans who live in a few organized colonies in solitary seclusion (e.g. Aiken, GA) and blaspheme the Holy Spirit as a clan tradition", "Occultists who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, who sell their soul for eternity to be granted unabated Satanic empowerment in this age represent .5% of the population of the United States"... There is plenty in there to be offended by. Regardless, even if it was not offensive, Wikipedia is not the place to espouse ones religious beliefs. Chillum 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:SOAP. These are policy, and also apply to userspace. Sandstein 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete, though I am loath to suggest this for a userfied article. The main purpose for userfying articles is for items either directly related to the editor or articles which are in the process of getting to an encyclopedic nature but would currently fail AfD. I doubt that any article which claims either explicitly or implicitly to be the one and only truth on a religious matter is never going to pass Wikipedia's WP:RANT standards. Grutness... wha? 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delay action for at least a few days. I am in correspondence with the author on unblock-en-l about issues with the content and his behavior. I'd like to discuss the situation with him further before any action is taken on the article. -- Chris (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- What discussion could lead to this content being acceptable? Chillum 15:19, 29 July 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.