Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:QuackGuru

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, both the main userpage and the sandbox. However, because of what now exists on the main userpage (simply a list of sources, which is not covered in this MfD), I have deleted all the prior revisions excluding this latest one. There is a strong consensus that all revisions prior to the latest one should be deleted. Daniel Bryant 10:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-close addition: There is no consensus to delete User:NorwegianMarcus/Sandbox, User:NeoFreak/sandbox/sandbox5, User:Wikiman232/Essjay and User:C.m.jones/Essjay as a result of this debate, because there was only one comment made after they were listed. A further MfD will be required. Daniel Bryant 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:QuackGuru

Duplication of existing article in user space, use of user page in a manner not becoming to the user space (not helping in the process of collaborating to create the encyclopedia specifically) , use of user space to hold a preferred version of an article, overtones of WP:OWN and WP:OR too. -- Nick ^t 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: The fact that this user page includes large amounts of details of a living person without their consent and the likelyhood of active surveillance of this page by other editors is minimal makes this user page problematic as well. (→Netscott) 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:BLP, WP:Content forking along with other worries. Gwen Gale 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Essjay controversy/sandbox which was a delete. - Denny 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Essjay controversy/sandbox. User has been provided with information on how to make a proper sandbox. This has also been discussed on AN/I, where one recommendation was to consider working offline as an alternative. Risker 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hard enough to regulate the actual article for neutrality and WP:BLP without a userspace copy. This isn't a draft, its a copy of how one editor thinks an article should read. A view that has been pushed on the article's talkpage to the point of disruption. WjBscribe 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete BLP concerns. — Moe 22:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- Avi 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note. The material has now been moved to User:QuackGuru/Sandbox. It is in my opinion just as problematic on a user subpage. WjBscribe 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Gwen Gale 04:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close since the problem has been resolved per above. Wooyi 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How has it been resolved? The same problems apply if the material is in a sandbox surely? WjBscribe 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how? Gwen Gale 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox is not intended to put true stuff in. It is a place for random forking and testing. Who cares what we write into sandbox anyways? Wooyi 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not using it as a sandbox. He's using it as a fork. Gwen Gale 04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete from anywhere in userspace. It's about a notable BLP and should therefore be in the article about him, which is being actively watched to make sure it adheres to the content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second the call for Deletion on the sandbox version (fork) as well per the sensitive nature of BLP topics as expressed well by User:SlimVirgin. (→Netscott) 04:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• thirded. - Denny 04:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• fourthed. Gwen Gale 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Material not fit for Wikipedia is material not fit for Wikipedia wherever it resides on a userpage or in a sandbox. If you start saying "well, let's Speedy Close as he has moved the content from A to B" then we'll have articles and general crap being moved about, into sandboxes and what have you to circumvent the deletion process. -- Nick ^t 23:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with recommendation for deletion from any user pages, as there are now more forks than you see at a Sunday picnic. See also User:NorwegianMarcus/Sandbox, User:NeoFreak/sandbox/sandbox5, User:Wikiman232/Essjay and User:C.m.jones/Essjay. Risker 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's redundant and a fork. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:40, 21 March 2007 (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.