Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/2005-09-01

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by Rdsmith4. Radiant_>|< 09:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Myspacex

Spam - promotional of a web service. Was created twice at Myspacex and once at Talk:Myspacex. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 15:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is too far, even for userspace. Google does sometimes pick up non-mainspace stuff, and WP wouldn't to be helping its pagerank inadvertently. As long as this isn't one that Jimbo has sanctioned, but there's no evidence of that. -Splash 15:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• This "user" has so far only contributed to this user page and to the Myspacex article (edits which were immediately reverted). This is not an appropriate use of the user space. The Myspacex article itself still needs aggressive cleanup. This is way over the top. Rossami (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Zap -- This content should be removed and the page title redirected to the Sandbox. In fact, I'm going to Be Bold and do just that, right now. — Xiong熊talk* 20:49, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
  • Nope. No cross-namespace redirects. Sorry. -Splash 21:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I worked with this user via email to get this user page working. If the page has to be deleted, then you will get no problems with me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inappropriate userspace. It's not really useful to make up a zapping process on the spot and act on it as if it were policy. Radiant_>|< 22:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete it. While you debate, I act -- and I seriously doubt that anybody wants to retain the nominated page in any form. I think it is highly useful to create tools whenever needed. But that doesn't make them policy -- and I never said it did. No FUD, please. — Xiong熊talk* 23:07, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

• This is obvious spam. I've speedy-deleted it. — Dan | Talk 00:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 02:38, 2005 September 3 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep since the page is an archive. All pages can be archived. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:The original Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Is any of this notable and/or worth giving lots of valuable space on Wikipedia for? UniReb 00:19, 1 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.