Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaneda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:Kaneda
Inappropriate user page. Duplicate of NoPoint.org, also on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 05:49, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. User pages enjoy a lot of latitude but using them to dodge VfD is not kosher. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, Delete the page along with NoPoint.org. Rhobite 05:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - bad faith attempt to avoid deletion through user page loophole. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, obnoxious attempt to violate the rules and procedure of wikipedia--nixie 06:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Egil 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, I was under the impression an editor's userpage cannot be VfD'd. We've had previous user pages here before and the consensus was almost always not to delete. Megan1967 06:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases: List on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion". —Korath (Talk) 07:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It's inappropriate to use a user page to bypass the vfd process. Zzyzx11 08:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete A lot is allowed on userpages, but bypassing vfd isn't. Mgm|(talk) 10:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, concur with MacGyver. Radiant! 11:18, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete obvious attempt to defy consensus by re-creating VfDed content in user space. On the plus side, I suppose, it at least removes any reasonable doubt regarding whether the NoPoint.org article is vanity or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the user page. Blatant abuse of userpage facility. While we're at it, delete the user as well. Chris 16:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete it. Circumvention of vdf. DaveTheRed 01:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, along with NoPoint.org. Immediate action should also be taken to ban User:Kaneda and his legions of sockpuppets. Binadot 17:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Assuming this isn't allowed (and I'm confortable assuming it), one should also check out these deleted articles: User:Vagrant/Stacy Armstrong, User:Vagrant/Eric Bruno Borgman, User:.0/The Deserter, User:.0/Elona Bojaxhi, User:.0/The Man in the Movie, and User:.0/Roy LeRoi. User:.0 himself is a sockpuppet, it's pretty safe to say. -R. fiend 18:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Those should be independently nominated. Rossami (talk) 20:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I feel there should be some leeway for cases where the VfD consensus is that the article as written (rather than the article subject itself) is inappropriate; in such a case it might be appropriate to allow the article to be moved to userspace to be worked on. However -- this is not the case for User:Kaneda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well the above articles were deleted for promotion/non-notability/vanity issues, not that they were particularly poorly written. -R. fiend 21:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- True. I just wanted to say that since we're starting to talk about a general principle, that there might be some exceptions -- even though neither User:Kaneda nor any of the subpages you list would be exceptions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Good, then we're in agreement. -R. fiend 22:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- True. I just wanted to say that since we're starting to talk about a general principle, that there might be some exceptions -- even though neither User:Kaneda nor any of the subpages you list would be exceptions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well the above articles were deleted for promotion/non-notability/vanity issues, not that they were particularly poorly written. -R. fiend 21:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. And hard. Circumvents VfD. Demi 19:30, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost - David Gerard 11:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Preposterous and persecutory. I routinely preserve deleted articles in my own userspace and I don't think that violates policy at all. In any case, the user has blanked the offending content, although I see no reason why he or she should feel obligated to. Everyking 11:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Bypassing VfD is not cool. Advertising is not what user pages are for. "Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian." Dpark 02:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I dont understand what you guys are trying to do, Kaneda has cleared his page repeadatly, yet you guys revert it back and keep trying to delete it? Just let him clear his own page and get it over with. Barab 01:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Barab makes a pretty good point. -R. fiend 02:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The reason for continuing, IMHO, is to establish a solid consensus. If someone were determined to flout consensus, they might try to delete the page in question and say "OK, I give, call off the VfD" -- and then, once the VfD was called off, recreate the page somewhere else and say "No VfD ever actually called for it to be deleted!" If you think that's farfetched, you haven't seen what some people really will try to get their way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, but since NoPoint.org has already been deleted as an article this argument is doomed anyway. The reverting of this page back into existence after the creator blanked it, just to delete it permanently is deliciously ironic, however. -R. fiend
- I'm glad not every editor on this site is a moron Barab 06:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No personal attacks, please. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad not every editor on this site is a moron Barab 06:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, but since NoPoint.org has already been deleted as an article this argument is doomed anyway. The reverting of this page back into existence after the creator blanked it, just to delete it permanently is deliciously ironic, however. -R. fiend
- The reason for continuing, IMHO, is to establish a solid consensus. If someone were determined to flout consensus, they might try to delete the page in question and say "OK, I give, call off the VfD" -- and then, once the VfD was called off, recreate the page somewhere else and say "No VfD ever actually called for it to be deleted!" If you think that's farfetched, you haven't seen what some people really will try to get their way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Barab makes a pretty good point. -R. fiend 02:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons outlined by Korath. —Psychonaut 01:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Your user page calls people "cranks" and "problematic". If I had to delete either this user page or yours, I think I'd pick yours. But I'd prefer to let people do pretty much whatever they want with their pages. Everyking 02:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You too chief, you're allright Barab 06:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Your user page calls people "cranks" and "problematic". If I had to delete either this user page or yours, I think I'd pick yours. But I'd prefer to let people do pretty much whatever they want with their pages. Everyking 02:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
