Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cpulfer

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 all. El_C 14:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cpulfer and 12 other user pages

Wikipedia is not MySpace, Part Large-Number-Albeit-Still-In-Single-Digits: Submitted again for your official verdicts, more userfied vanity articles for "editors" clearly who ain't here for the editin', but for the publicizin'/self-expression, the rest of the batch from January this year. And once again, I left messages on their Talk Pages.

To recap, they ARE all similar, as these:

a) are user pages that were moved from article space by an admin/editor.

b) were originally articles that were originally speedy-delete candidates or speedy-delete eligible.

c) have page creators who have few/no edits outside user space.

d) have page creators who have not edited at all (with a couple of exception)s since the initial page creation, at least nine months ago.

e) are, prima facie, not user pages, but attempts to use Wikipedia as a free webhost/promotional vehicle. WP:NOT, stating that Wikipedia is not a free web host is applicable.

[edit] The list

[edit] Discussion

• Delete all per nom. (P.S. how are you finding these?) MER-C 10:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't YOU like to know! BWA-HA-HA-HA...<cough> <cough>...er, I mean I just followed the links on the "What links here" page for the {{userfied}} template. It appears that the 220-name list is presented chronologically, and I just work my way through it every once in awhile and see what qualifies -- almost all of them, it turns out. I'm also maintaining a list in my User Space for newly userfied pages I come across. I figure in a month or so I'll hit August's entries, and I can see if those editors have done any actual editing. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• And it's not as if I'll ever lack for material: a look through the Move Log just for today turned up 7 probables:

• Nimafn (talk · contribs)
• FlightOfStairs (talk · contribs)
• Masterphick (talk · contribs)
• The0doT (talk · contribs)
• MrMobo/Certified Ethical Hacker review (talk · contribs)
• CowleyJohn (talk · contribs)
• Alexman132 (talk · contribs) -- already reverted move

Which I'll put on my list and see what happens. --Calton | Talk 13:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to come across a few search terms, which is how I come across most of mine (the rest I stumble upon while RC patrolling). I have a list of search terms mainly used for catching speediable userspace spam, though I too happen across other types of deletable userpages. Though I have to admit, it's harder coming up with search terms for myspaceuser pages than it is for spam. What if the moving admin substed {{userfy}} instead?

And that lengthy list? That's why I don't believe in userification - it only serves to increase the entropy of Wikipedia. MER-C 13:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What if the moving admin substed {{userfy}} instead? Well, there's always a Google site search using phrases from the template -- which gets 506 hits, I see. --Calton | Talk 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This similar search uses a phrase that has been in the template for longer and picks up slightly more hits. -- RHaworth 09:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Badbilltucker 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except User:Georgeandlewis This user has minimal information on their user page and a history of vandalism—keep to preserve the history of vandalism. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. (Except maybe User:Georgeandlewis per above, if others feel that retaining that info is important. I don't care much either way) This really is an impressive task of getting rid of all of these. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all including the vandal's page. Props to Calton for his search and destroy junk mission. Jcam 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'll ask again what purpose deletion serves. Since we've dispensed (in the previous round) of talk of "saving space," I mean. If we're concerned that this will make these guys famous via Google, blank the page. I'm grasping at what reason a person could have for going through the motions of a deletion nomination. "Props" seem wildly off-base at this point. - 152.91.9.144 23:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• And I'll ask again why you claim to be able to read deleted pages: if you can, you're an admin, but editing behind the anonymity of an IP number; if not, you're making stuff up. Either way, your credibility suffers.
• As for the reasons, it's straightforward: I'm helping take out the garbage. I'm grasping at what reason a person could have for wanting to enable propagation of garbage, spam, and childish vanity pages. --Calton | Talk 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  Please don't personalise a very straight-forward issue. Re-read my comments here and in the previous nominations: Deletion of these pages serves almost no purpose. Blanking the page is as effective, and requires less "paperwork." Everyone's time could be better spent, and you'd get through the "userfied" list quicker. The only apparent downside would be a lacks of recognition for having done it. - 152.91.9.144 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't personalise a very straight-forward issue. Really? You first. Not to mention that I just copied your phrasing, so if you find it insulting in any way, perhaps you ought not have employed it in the first place. I believe the phrase "psychological projection" applies -- including your peculiar bit of mind-reading in the last sentence. Free clue: unilateral blanking of other user's pages is an open invitation for trouble. Free clue 2: getting consensus for an action beats getting in trouble for it.
• I also note that you've now three times dodged a very simple question, namely why you claim to be able to read deleted pages: if you can, you're an admin, but editing behind the anonymity of an IP number; if not, you're making stuff up. Want to go for four? --Calton | Talk 05:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is odd, but that alone really shouldn't be an issue here. Editors do have the option of editing anonymously, and it would only be a problem here if he was also "voting" logged in as well. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• The reasons I gave here are: A vanity article is still a vanity article in the user namespace. The WoW (world outside Wikipedia) is unlikely to appreciate the difference that "user:" makes. Search engines crawl user space.

In cases where userfication was done to rescue an article for speedy deletion, the user page can be speedily deleted on the strength of the {{db...}} tag embeded in the history. In other cases, I would be happy to give admins blanket authorisation to delete userfied pages where the user is inactive and has done few other edits. -- RHaworth 09:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:20, 14 November 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.