Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mirelapsta2006/The bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion | User:Mirelapsta2006
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. One hopes deletion of this page will motivate the user to learn more about Wikipedia policy: he or she needn't take the deletion personally. Xoloz 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Mirelapsta2006/The bible
Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this user appears to use their userspace as a free webhost to post those opinions (no further edits outside their userspace). Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Opinions are the only contributions this user has made. --Alex (talk here) 11:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - to be fair they only arrived two days ago and do have edits outside their userspace - a request for an article to be created in Wikipedia:Articles for creation using this page as the source. The article has already been moved from the main user page because it breached policy, but I don't think it falls under Wikipedia is not a soapbox (nothing links here). It looks to me to be just a misunderstanding about what is acceptable - some guidance will probably resolve the situation. Yomanganitalk 11:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well the only other edit they made was to AFC - for the same page basically. It wasn't article worthy [1] I was the one who declined the article, and so they went and put it on their user page. --Alex (talk here) 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think they were attempting to provide sources for the article you turned down. I don't see any deliberate attempt to flaunt policy (otherwise the mainspace would have been a better target), just some misunderstanding of how it all works. I'm not saying keep, but I think they need more help. Yomanganitalk 12:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, they probably were. --Alex (talk here) 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- When I welcomed him/her I left my name saying I'd be available for help as well. --Alex (talk here) 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think they were attempting to provide sources for the article you turned down. I don't see any deliberate attempt to flaunt policy (otherwise the mainspace would have been a better target), just some misunderstanding of how it all works. I'm not saying keep, but I think they need more help. Yomanganitalk 12:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well the only other edit they made was to AFC - for the same page basically. It wasn't article worthy [1] I was the one who declined the article, and so they went and put it on their user page. --Alex (talk here) 11:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- New user. Give him/her the benefit of doubt for a while. Reconsider after the user has had more time to understand our policies and standards. Rossami (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This would be borderline for a more respected, long-term user as a side (incoherent?) essay. For someone new, it should be deleted for now. We should be more willing to explain (and kind in doing so) to new users, but also more willing to correct. Being new should never act as an e-ticket. --Improv 16:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOT a free webhost or soapbox, as noted above, and I don't see where it says that these policies don't also apply to new users. Sandstein 09:52, 9 September 2006 (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.
