Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rjg525

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. Xoloz 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rjg525

User has made no contributions except a speedied vanity page and his user page, and even then nothing since March. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Delete. Angr (t • c) 19:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Can somebody run a script to find user pages of users who have not edited mainspace (and are a couple of weeks old)? All of these should be checked, and almost all deleted by WP:NOT a free webhost. Kusma (討論) 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yup. Delete It is as Angr says. He even uploaded a vanity photo to go with it. Would be fine from a user with a few hundred good edits. --Hughcharlesparker 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  Also, Support Kusma's idea of a vanity user page. Can anyone comment on the feasibility? --Hughcharlesparker 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  A few hundred? The userpage and photo would be fine from a user with a dozen good edits. Angr (t • c) 22:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yup. fair enough. --Hughcharlesparker 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't it common practice to userfy vanity pages? WP:VAIN and Wikipedia:Userfication suggest it, and we even have Template:Userfied-nn. All the user's edits were actually to the vanity article, before it was userfied by User:MarkSweep. In other words, said user is only guilty of creating a vanity page, not using userspace as free web space (though it amounts to the same thing). There are probably dozens of similar cases, of vanity pages being userfied for people who never come back. Not that there's any need to keep them. Wkdewey 05:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, userfying vanity pages is common practice, and if the user goes on to become a productive Wikipedian, then all is good. But even a userfied vanity page needn't be kept indefinitely if the user doesn't contribute to the project at all and doesn't touch even his user page in two months (or even one month). I wouldn't nominate a userfied vanity page for MFD after only a few days. Angr (t • c) 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No contributions since March. DarthVader 12:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host. --Terence Ong 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, userifed vanity pages that look like articles should be subject to similar criteria as WP:NOT, as userpages get picked up by google, and unless someone is familiar with Wikipedia, they won't know that User:Mr Abc is not an article Mr Abc. (require {{userpage}} on all article look alike userpages, maybe?) RegardsMartinRe 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  Even that's not good enough. The people could still put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr_Abc on their business cards etc. as their homepage. Angr (t • c) 07:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  Not good as a long term solution, no, but what about suggesting that the admin userifing a vanity page adds {{userpage}} to it, so it doesn't bite newbies, but if it remains unchanged (or the userpage removed), then it can be mfd'd. Regards, MartinRe 10:26, 26 May 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.