Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EddieSegoura/Exicornt

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:EddieSegoura/Exicornt

Made up term which User:EddieSegoura spent a great deal of time defending by creating several sockpuppets to vote on the AfD page. Quite rightly, the page was deleted, but now it's shown up on this User page. Since User pages are viewable by Google, this appears to be an attempt at getting this made up word Internet coverage. For what, a potential recreation of the article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: What's wrong with keeping it on My userpages? And no I had no idea google would pick it up. I'm keeping it until I have the right research for the word. This is not an attempt to recreate the word and it will not be recreated in the main space until I get reliable research. Check here for now. -- Eddie 04:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the bottom the page. It explains why I use the word, even though many of You have never heard of it before. -- Eddie 05:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Eddie, read WP:NOT. --Viriditas 07:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ahhhh...ok. The source for this information is a personal website, which contains an image of a (non-professionally) drawn list of railroad junction. Because someone has engaged in sockpuppetry related to this, it is reasonable to suspect that a puppet posted this image, which is otherwise unrelated to its parent page and not very convincing as substantial evidence. However, forgetting the picture, I will vote to keep this. I do think Mr. Segoura remains a bit confused (see his RfA's) about what WP is, and how one should use it. That said, I believe he is acting in good faith. If "exicornt" is, as suspected, imaginary, I doubt this page will cause it to gain currency. If it does, somehow, accomplish this, I will be very impressed, to say the least. On the off chance Mr. Segoura is correct, let the page remain his pet in user-space. My vote would be very different if Mr. Segoura engages in a pattern of dubious articles, but I cannot call a single one, standing alone, dishonest. Xoloz 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, the page will not be recreated in the mainspace until I have enough research to put it up. If I don't find any, it will remain here in My archive. Thank You for understanding, Xoloz -- Eddie 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep; "exicornt" getting into Google thanks to the user page doesn't seem like a pressing problem. On the plus side, the page does allow Eddie to hone his editing skills in non-article space. I must say, though, this "new evidence" at http://transit.8m.net/switches.htm is a very bad sign of things to come. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

don't worry, that alone will not be used to recreate it in the namespace. -- Eddie 06:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Eddie, I highly recommend deleting that web page and avoiding any reference to it in the future. --Viriditas 07:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominator may want to tag User talk:EddieSegoura/Exicornt, a duplicate of the original MfD. --Viriditas 06:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate and changed it into a real discussion page. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Eddie 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Reminds me of the "history of toilet paper rolls" article, hopefully someone will come along to make it more funny in the future. Ashibaka (tock) 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry Eddie, but given what we've been through with the sock puppets, lying, citing fake sources etc, I think it would be better if you archived it on your computer. You have said you want a new beginning here. In my opinion, removing this page would be the best way to achieve that. Sarah Ewart 23:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a user space page, especially now that he makes it clear that he made it up. --SPUI (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - same as what SPUI said. Also, I believe Wikitionary accepts neologisms, so that may be an appropriate place for it. However, I don't think the word is appropriate in the main article namespace. --HappyCamper 00:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary has a policy similar to Wikipedia about verifiability. --SPUI (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right SPUI, thanks for catching that point I missed above. --HappyCamper 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per SPUI TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He made up the term, and then used sockpuppets and constant promises of sources Real Soon Now to try to keep it in the Main space: this demonstrates for me the opposite of "acting in Good Faith". He has a computer at home; let him keep it there. --Calton | Talk 05:54, 7 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.