- 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. ( NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:FAKEARTICLE Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 07:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This nomination is seriously flawed.
WP:FAKEARTICLE is not easily summarised but it starts off "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". This page was created today by someone who has not previously edited and it bears no relation to anything deprecated in the guideline. It would be appropriate for the nominator to apologise for the mistaken use of Twinkle.
Thincat (
talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- How about WP:NOTRESUME? "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." That user's page is very vague about his interests (which would indicate his editing area). Tell me how any content on that page is relevant to Wikipedia's mission.
- On the other hand, I agree that the nomination was a bit too quick. I would wait a few days at least, to see if the user starts editing in the main namespace. Even though I would be surprised if he did. Keφr 18:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- But your quote stopped before "Limited biographical information is allowed ..." and the nomination, apart from specifying an irrelevant guideline, conspicuously failed to heed WP:MFD in the section Deleting pages in other people's userspace. The content is not at all like a resume (or it is a very poor attempt at one). To answer your question about content, he has told us his name, age, location, education and interests and these may well be of interest to people considering approaching him on WP matters. I do not understand any need for him to provide an essay on WP's mission. And no, I'm sad to say that after this way of treating him as a new editor, I would be surprised if he edits again. Thincat ( talk) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm If the user had edited anywhere else, I'd go for keep. As they haven't, I'd be happier with a delay to see if they do. If they don't, then this is probably a profile to boost one's Google presence like so many more. Peridon ( talk) 18:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep without prejudice against re-nomination As of now, there's nothing bad enough on the page that it warrants deletion. I do agree it seems a little spammy, so I stuck {{ user page|noindex=yes}} on it. If the page sits in roughly the condition it is for a while, and the user doesn't do anything useful for the project, then I'd support deletion. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I have some sympathy with reconsidering after a proper (and less dreadful) welcome and waiting to see what happens. It would be good if user pages were not indexed anyway (at least by default). However, by sending the page to MFD almost immediately we have made it far less likely the user will edit again. Haven't we? I rarely visit MFD but if this is at all a typical way for dealing with new users I think the matter needs to be brought up at a policy level. Thincat ( talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Perhaps a little Facebook-y but the material there meets the limited biographical content criteria; the editor has just joined and should be given the opportunity to contribute. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:54, 5 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 keep. ( NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:FAKEARTICLE Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 07:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This nomination is seriously flawed.
WP:FAKEARTICLE is not easily summarised but it starts off "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". This page was created today by someone who has not previously edited and it bears no relation to anything deprecated in the guideline. It would be appropriate for the nominator to apologise for the mistaken use of Twinkle.
Thincat (
talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- How about WP:NOTRESUME? "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." That user's page is very vague about his interests (which would indicate his editing area). Tell me how any content on that page is relevant to Wikipedia's mission.
- On the other hand, I agree that the nomination was a bit too quick. I would wait a few days at least, to see if the user starts editing in the main namespace. Even though I would be surprised if he did. Keφr 18:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- But your quote stopped before "Limited biographical information is allowed ..." and the nomination, apart from specifying an irrelevant guideline, conspicuously failed to heed WP:MFD in the section Deleting pages in other people's userspace. The content is not at all like a resume (or it is a very poor attempt at one). To answer your question about content, he has told us his name, age, location, education and interests and these may well be of interest to people considering approaching him on WP matters. I do not understand any need for him to provide an essay on WP's mission. And no, I'm sad to say that after this way of treating him as a new editor, I would be surprised if he edits again. Thincat ( talk) 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm If the user had edited anywhere else, I'd go for keep. As they haven't, I'd be happier with a delay to see if they do. If they don't, then this is probably a profile to boost one's Google presence like so many more. Peridon ( talk) 18:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep without prejudice against re-nomination As of now, there's nothing bad enough on the page that it warrants deletion. I do agree it seems a little spammy, so I stuck {{ user page|noindex=yes}} on it. If the page sits in roughly the condition it is for a while, and the user doesn't do anything useful for the project, then I'd support deletion. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I have some sympathy with reconsidering after a proper (and less dreadful) welcome and waiting to see what happens. It would be good if user pages were not indexed anyway (at least by default). However, by sending the page to MFD almost immediately we have made it far less likely the user will edit again. Haven't we? I rarely visit MFD but if this is at all a typical way for dealing with new users I think the matter needs to be brought up at a policy level. Thincat ( talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Perhaps a little Facebook-y but the material there meets the limited biographical content criteria; the editor has just joined and should be given the opportunity to contribute. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:54, 5 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.