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 MOOT - all pages have been blanked by the author. Speedy U1 no longer includes an express provision for deleting user pages blanked by the author, Speedy G7 specifically does not apply to user space, and WP:USER does not provide a policy basis but merely says that some users may interpret blanking as a request for deletion. This admin chooses not to so interpret it. Blanking is sufficient to address all of the concerns below, except that of indexing, which is easily solved by adding ((noindex)) to the pages; had the pages remained, a userpage template would have clarified that they were not encyclopedia articles sufficiently in the short term - in case the author was only practicing. Longer term, blanking rather than deleting would have been sufficient community action. Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band)[edit]

We are not a webhost for garage bands. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you actually read the article? These kids are fourteen, and not getting notable anytime soon. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did notice that they are nowhere near notable, but because they are not articles, that criteria does not have to apply. You could cinsider them nicly formatted sandboxes. If they were called [[User:Septemberboy/sandbox1] 2 3 . . . would you think differently? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-promotional "pseudoarticles" in user space are damaging to the project in the same way that mainspace spam is. Part of the reason we have a policy on promotion and spam is so that people can't use the reputation of Wikipedia to further their own self-interests. If we allow people to have what looks like an encyclopedia article in userspace, then they could easily be sending less savvy users to that page as if it were a real article, and they may well not notice or even be aware of what "User namespace" is, or even what a namespace is in the first place. As well, userspace is indexed, so often these fake encyclopedia articles are the first hit in Google on their name. (I can't demonstrate this because the MfD template automatically noindexes them). Gigs (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However much I like the spirit of that in most cases, this isn't a new user account and an XfD is the polite way of doing things instead of A7 fever. A month ago there was a final warning on a file upload so the user's talk page exists and is there to see, and in order to publish so many articles made with detailed inter-connectivity it's obvious they know the system and the general rules. The MfD period of a week is certainly enough time to allow improvements. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think of two months as newish. He's made a lot of edits for the number of warnings he's been given. To me, MfD is more "confrontational and authoritarian" than "polite", as a first attempt at communication. I think he should have been asked o his talk page before the filing of an MfD. I think we should give him a chance to move the stuff off-site in his own time. Yes, a week is enough, if he is editing this week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2009 (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.


Category