Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Examples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 History Deleted only to remove personal attacks, the last version has been kept. — xaosflux Talk 22:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Goethean/Examples

Just an attack page in which this editor logs his opinions of other editors, mostly in a disparaging manner. Violates WP:NOT and WP:CIVIL. Does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete I was just coming here to do this very thing. MONGO puts it perfectly, this is nothing but an enemies list and outrageously in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Rx StrangeLove 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Attack page, should be deleted. Guettarda 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Get rid of it. •Jim62sch• 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Divisive, not helpful to anyone. Tom Harrison Talk 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Some parts of it would be amusing if they were meant in good humor but they clearly aren't. As it is, it is just a bunch of attacks that serve no discernible purpose. JoshuaZ 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This page is simply ridiculous. WikiPrez 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is the user namespace. Don't see the reason for deleting it, in particular as it is just a collection of diffs without commentary. How can anyone make claims of "attacks" when these are in the major part diffs? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The editor took the sardonic comments out since the nomination[1], but the links remain...userspace is still the property of Wikipedia and is for the most part still bound by the same rules as in article space, with only a few more leeways. The page violates WP:NPA just by it's very nature.--MONGO 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The page violates WP:NPA just by it's very nature.
Could you expand on that? Exactly how is does a list of internal links constitute a personal attack? — goethean ॐ 14:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That shouldn't even be justified with an answer. Everyone here knows that the page was edited to appear less controversial after the MfD was posted. There's no guarantee the personal attacks won't reappear if the page is left alone. Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for the world, and pages like the one being discussed do nothing to help that cause, even if it is a user page. I reiterate my vote as above, and strongly recommend that the page be deleted.WikiPrez 22:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As modified now, the page is clean of personal attacks, but they exist in the history, and they may well reappear after this MfD. I'll never understand why people keep "enemies lists" on WP resources, where anybody can read and edit them. If one must keep such list, a personal webpage -- or paper, the old reliable -- are so much more private. If Nixon taught us anything, it is that a public "enemies list" is more harmful to its writer than to its listees. Xoloz 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the current version can be recreated if you like but the history must go. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia resources even user space should not be used as a place to post attacks against other editors. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal attacks are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. Jet Engines 23:57, 10 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.