Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Watchtower Sentinel/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

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. Daniel Bryant 09:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Watchtower Sentinel/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

This is a copy of a page that went through a valid AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (2). If this had been created with the idea of improving the article to enable the reposting then I would not have listed it for deletion. However based on the edit summary when it was created I don't think that is the case and that it just reflects the POV of Watchtower Sentinel. Having this in a user space will, I believe, be an open invitation to Hamsacharya dan to have his own POV copy and a continuation of the edit war between the two editors. I also think that it is violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, in particular, Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site and should therefore be Deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest Keep - CambridgeBayWeather is stretching WP:NOT to suit his personal agenda. This is a User Subpage not a WP article, it is under a different rule. Wikipedia is very clear about this, User Subpages have three point specific disallowed uses; they can found here. If CambridgeBayWeather can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that User:Watchtower Sentinel/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath falls in either one of them then there is no need for gathering consensus I will simply tag it as a user requested speedy and it will be deleted within seconds. But if CambridgeBayWeather won't be able to do that then he should leave this page alone and honorably request to be relieved of his administrative duties for obvious partisanship and gross ignorance of WP rules and policies. - Sentinel 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Having this in userspace for the sake of it just being there is asking for trouble, as those two users have quite a history of edit warring over this and other articles. Wikipedia isn't a free web host. It's also difficult to assume good faith for either user when one is requesting that the nominator be desysopped if this article is deleted. --Coredesat 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- If he edit wars with me over this Subpage in my own User Space then I will just 3RR him. What are there rules for? I have seen the rules enforced successfully and I trust them fully, don't you? Also, where did you get that nonsense about the page being created "for the sake of it just being there"? The edit summary was crystal clear, it was created as reference for those who missed the article when it was still in existence, which is in perfect accord with the core purpose of WP itself (a reference). It is just a User Subpage, it's not an article and does not appear in the search facility, what are you girls nagging about? It is also not a website. It is so much of an overkill to stretch Wikipedia isn't a free web host to include one lowly User Subpage when there are countless users who maintain loads of subpages. Give me a break! - Sentinel

• "Girls nagging"? Please read WP:NPA. --Fire Star 火星 11:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. I have no intention in engaging this person in more of his shenanigans. His behavior is reminiscent of this little guy, and only one other editor NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) who had a string of sockpuppets like Terminator III (talk · contribs), all of which were already blocked indefinitely for engaging in these useless activities to defame Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, which undermines the mission of wikipedia. --Hamsacharya dan 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The old pot seems to be calling the brand new kettle black (history proves that Hamsacharya dan used two proxies as sockpuppets namely 128.195.163.203 and 128.195.111.122 to push his COI). Can't you read? CambridgeBayWeather filed this Mfd because he believes you will run amock, vandalize the page, and edit war until the Apocalipse. You have been a very bad boy and everyone is afraid of the headache that you will bring when your fanatical fervor goes completely berzerk once again (there goes "Earth peace through self peace"). Now, I believe it's my turn to say "Interesting reaction Hamsacharya dan!" - Sentinel

• Delete - I have changed my vote from keep to delete due to consideration of the comments here. It seems I was giving weight in my previous vote/comment to aspects of the situation which do not really apply to this vote or discussion on point. If the manner in which I have changed my vote is less than correct, would someone be so kind as to let me know on my talk page? I'm still trying to get my "legs" around here and understand the processes and best practice. -Vritti 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A POV fork is a POV fork, no matter where it is. --Fire Star 火星 11:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom, and per apparent bad faith of the user, based on his history with the article. He apparently wants to continue having his own views of the subject propagated on the internet, using (and abusing) WP for that purpose. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per AfD. No secondary sources were found, so this article is not going to be recreated any time soon. User can keep a copy o0n his computer and re-submit once a secondary source publishes on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 6 April 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.