The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was KEEP, no need to delete for now, given that the user has removed the disputed content. User:Kotahirauaerima should be aware that rebuilding a similar page is likely to end up in another deletion discussion. - Nabla (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kotahirauaerima[edit]

User:Kotahirauaerima (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In line with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bensonfood, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's an existing article about New Zealand supercentenarians. Any salvageable information should go there and not stay on a userpage. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on the List of New Zealand supercentenarians talk page, that article is almost entirely OR and the remainder can easily be found elsewhere. If someone else doesn't get around to it, I'll be nominating it for deletion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST Ca2james (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliably sourced draft article, which are explicitly allowed in Wikipedia subpages. It appears to me that CommanderLinx, Ricky81682, and Ca2james may be acting as WP:MEAT. It's the same users every time nominating these userspace pages for deletion and simply agreeing with each other in a circular manner. Without any outside input, these discussion sections just seem pointless. I've added a tag at the top of the page to denote that it is not an article, as suggested by WP:SUB. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is a draft then it should be in a sandbox, not as a user page. Your accusation that the three of us who have focused on these userspace pages are meatpuppets is hilarious to me. I've no idea who Ricky81682 or CommanderLinx are; I started looking at these pages because I saw the ANI discussion and did a little searching to see whether there were any more of these userspace pages. I am doing what I think is right based on my own understanding of policies and guidelines. Besides, other editors (like AndyTheGrump, above) have weighed in on these discussions. Or are he and the others part of this meatpuppet theory? Ca2james (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then discuss it with the user on their talk page, as is the protocol set out on this very page. Or move it to Sandbox rather than violating WP:POINT. WP:NOTWEBHOST does not apply since the page does not infringe on any of the policies set out on that page. It is not a personal web page; nor is it being used to host files; nor is it a dating service; and nor is it a memorial page. It seems that across all these articles you have suggested for deletion, you're deeming that any table built within userspace automatically becomes a personal website, but I cannot find any policy which states that. As suggested by WP:USER I have added a tag to the page to denote that it is not an article to avoid any confusion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Wtwilson3's comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood. He explains it much better than I can. WP:FAKEARTICLE is still on point. It looks like List of New Zealand supercentenarians (or at least should be). It's not short-term, it's been a year, it's not likely to be an article as the article already exists. It's simply a preferred version of the content. The recommended solution is to delete the article. Discussion only gives a delay. If the user wants to follow policy, they can request that the content be deleted and work within the encyclopedia. What else can be done? The user has never edited anywhere in the encyclopedia, just this userpage. The editor is either here to constructively and in a cooperative manner work within the community or not and this is not the first topic where dozens of userpages have to be deleted because users are only interested in posting their own content for themselves (typically it's movie stars, bands, but literally any topic) and when the userpages are deleted, they leave yes in a huff because they aren't here to work with other users and it's no different than the community members who get blocked or banned regardless of the content they provide just because of their attitude. If literally your first edit is to copy the contents of a page onto your user page and then only to work on that version, that person would generally have their stuff deleted and be blocked under WP:NOTHERE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that. I hope the editor would return and consider assisting at the project (perhaps getting the New Zealand ones reinstated). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging CommanderLinx, AndyTheGrump, and Ca2james to see if we can all agree on this. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can agree with this as well. Ca2james (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to this, as long as Kotahirauaerima understands that he/she isn't going to be allowed to restore the content once this discussion closes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.


More