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, with a recommendation to the editors to move it to WP:AFC and review there. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to the article namespace and nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Francis Anhalt. Cunard (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreduardoa/sandbox[edit]

I'm rather concerned this could be a hoax. I've looked for sources supporting the claims and I cannot find any independent verification outside the subject's own page that he taught at the universities he lists himself teaching at. The university he claims to work at appears to be a paper mill. Some of the sources in the article patently do not support the facts in the article. One newspaper source that is used to say he did something doesn't mention him at all. I am also concerned about the COI of the editor in writing about themselves. A phone number was introduced into the article at one point. I think it is better to delete and start again if it looks legit. LauraHale (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it wasn't a hoax, the userspace is not a free web host and is not a substitute for the article space. I assume the page was made in good faith, but the author's contributions have been focused entirely on the sandbox article, which judging by the flattering tone, is suspicious. Move to the AFC space, per Mabdul. Even if it is a promotional article, procedurally, moving it to the AfC space and having it judged there may be the best option. --SGCM (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and block User:LauraHale for biting newbies This is exactly the sort of use that a user sandbox should be used for. User has even asked for help here and here. Entirely unwarranted and offensive MfD. SGCM's comment that a new user's use of sandbox is suspicious is bizarre - a new user should be encouraged to experiment in the sandbox before editing in mainspace. --Surturz (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I spent a fair amount of time working with this user on IRC to address issues on IRC. Myself and Shearonink talked about the importance of sourcing, discussed WP:COI and how to edit with that, discussed the importance of verifiability. I'm not biting when I say "He taught at Rutgers University, Douglass College, Muhlenberg College, Cardinal Stritch University, and the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater" is probably a hoax. I've looked at looked and looked for this information. I cannot find it. Looking at this, he was terminated from Cardinal Stritch University. He earned a doctoral degree from Rutgers according to this. Nothing on Rutgers at all supports the subject having taught there. This is not a case of biting. I tried very, very, very hard on IRC to help this user properly format the article, explained policies, etc. --LauraHale (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While at it, [1][2][3] which suggest this university he is a dean of is not accredited and actually illegal to use credentials from in Texas. Over in New Jersey credentials did not meet "educational requirements pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:42-2.1". Encouraging new users is great and I try to do it. We should not be encouraging hoaxes and scams that will be be supported by verifiable sources. --LauraHale (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) You most certainly are biting. This user account is two days old. The user has made no attempt to put the article into article space. This page is a sandbox for crying out loud - where in policy does it say that draft articles in a sandbox need to fulfil WP:V, WP:COI etc? Articles do not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus like Athena in her armour. Newbies should be given more than two days to draft an article before it is deleted. This kind of MfD is extremely damaging to the project. --Surturz (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The user has attempted to put it into the main user space by submitting it for review at Articles for Creation. Where on Wikipedia does it say Wikipedia is home for your personal web page and Wikipedia should host hoaxes? Newbies trying to include hoaxes on the project should be discouraged. Newbies trying to submit articles that misrepresent their own credentials to promote themselves on a page about themselves should be discouraged. --LauraHale (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you have a problem with submitting content such as "I've just submitted a thesis for a PhD in Communications at the University of Canberra with a focus on Australian sport fan communities on social media networks, specifically as it pertains to events, with a focus on creating a methodological framework for conducting such analysis."? Your user page called itself an article until I changed it just now. That sandbox is clearly marked that it is not an article. He could say he's really superman and has a thigh made of gold and it would not be disruptive. AFC is not the same as pushing it into mainspace. This sandbox is not disruptive. We should be tolerant of new users, rather than seeking to bully them out of the project. --Surturz (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that using the sandbox should be encouraged, my "suspicious" comment is directed at the possibility that the article is a promotional one, which is not uncommon on Wikipedia and which should be discouraged. I did say that it is necessary to assume good faith, and I apologize if my comment was misunderstood.--SGCM (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After he has submitted to AfC for review 10 times and declined 10 times, then MFD, otherwise, it is his sandbox. Who knows, it may get approved. :- ) Don 22:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site") --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed, but the difference between a biography and memorial site is? He seems to be alive and sane enough. Autobiographies are not prohibited, and much of it seems to check out, so far. :- ) Don 05:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to AFC space and decline the 'draft'. mabdul 14:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURO. If you want it gone, then vote delete. Don't muck about with process. --Surturz (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the policy on Userspace pages that look like articles but could never become an article is called WP:FAKEARTICLE and it says we should delete such pages. Pretending that calling a FAKEARTICLE a "sandbox" makes it ok shows a poor understanding of the issues surround the User space guidelines. Achowat (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unless I misunderstand, I think Mabdul is saying keep the article and let it run through the normal AfC processing. We have dealt with much worse than this. The article has been submitted already, (just not moved to AfC) apparently the editor wants to find out if it could be an article, I believe that fact negates the FAKEARTICLE argument. :- ) Don 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mabdul's solution has its own issues, specifically that running it through MFD to send it to AFC so that it can (and will) be deleted through and AFD smells of both WP:Request for process with a little bit of WP:OMGWTFBBQ thrown in. Achowat (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, my solution includes a decline because of not being sourced correctly and thus get declined (and not moved/accepted). Then the user is able to address the problems; the counter solution to Laura's "biting newbees". mabdul 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have "bitten" the newbie had I not been really concerned about some of the claims in the article that were rather patently untrue, that he appeared to be using it to promote a university and his position inside the university that was not accredited, and obvious sourcing problems that upon investigation showed a fair amount of padding. In most cases, I would not try to delete an article for being overly promotional. (I worked with an Indian contributor using their sources to take an article to DYK when the version sitting on AFC was very promotional for how awesome the person was.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If true, that's a legitimate WP:BLP concern, as per WP:BLPSOURCES. It may even qualify as a hoax, depending on how much was embellished. Do you have any specific examples on how the sources were misrepresented?--SGCM (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He taught at Rutgers University, Douglass College, Muhlenberg College, Cardinal Stritch University, and the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater" was in the article at the time of nomination. I searched and searched for this. I could confirm Cardinal Stritch University from 1985 to 2002 when he was dismissed. I could not confirm teaching at Rutgers (other than on his bio page at a university that states in the USA do not recognise credentials of and is described as a diploma mill elsewhere) or Dougles or University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. I could confirm he attended University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and Rutgers. There was another claim about selling 10,000 containers of sod or something like that. It did not check out. The article cited merely said he was a promoter who did that in conjunction with one party but not consulting another. There was a claim about being a judge at a pizza contest. The cited source did not mention him by name anywhere. --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, all of those arguments are fine and dandy if you are talking about article space, but, you are not. This is a user sandbox, the page that has the widest possible latitude for content in WP. Provided it is correctly tagged so that no-one mistakes it for an encyclopedia article, he can claim he's the pope if he wants. As per WP:SANDBOX - "Please do not place copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in the sandboxes". I see nothing in that sandbox that is copyright, offensive, or libelous. MfD has no business deleting sandboxes that contain content that is merely misleading, POV, or even verifiably incorrect. What is going on here is that you have made a decision that this editor is trying to push incorrect info into WP and that he should be drummed out of the project, or bullied into WP:V content.

It is ridiculous to expect newbies to do anything except break policy. We should encourage them to make mistakes and learn from them... in their userspace, where it does not harm the encyclopedia. If we are going to hold user sandboxes, of all places, to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc. then we may as well not have userspace at all.

I still think you (User:LauraHale) should be blocked for continuing to WP:BITE. Not happy with a bit of dissent at MfD you then go and edit his userspace against the conventions of WP:UP. --Surturz (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surturz, I really don't understand your fascination with allowing promotion, hoaxes, and promotional hoaxes in Userspace. And your continual calls to have Laura blocked is disruptive. Not only does it not foster real discussion, but it also weakens your arguments. If I were in your shoes, I'd strike and apologize. Achowat (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura does have legitimate concerns, and she did talk to the page's author on IRC before nominating the page, which should be commended. I think the real problem here is that WP:UP allows sandboxes for the creation of draft articles, but doesn't state the exact threshold for when a page qualifies as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Do we wait until the author is finishes the draft? Do we let it through AfC? Or do we nominate it for deletion once it becomes apparent that the article fails WP:GNG or WP:RS? There needs to be an established consensus on it, but there's not, and Laura shouldn't be blamed for it.--SGCM (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The user page was created eight days ago on 21 July 2012. Time frame for WP:FAKEARTICLE is "should not be used to indefinitely host pages" and "Short-term hosting ... is usually acceptable." Three months (give or take) is a time frame usually used at MfD to determine when a user page has passed into indefinitely host pages. The information is on a sub user page, not on User:Dreduardoa, so it's not likely others are going to run across it. Edward Francis Anhalt and Dreduardoa appear to be one in the same,[4] so I'm not sure if there are BLP problems. I didn't find any pages external to Wikipedia pointing to the Wikipedia sub user page.[5] Template:Hoax appears to be for article space, not user space. Doesn't seem to amount to "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article" noted at Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, per the same page you quote: "Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable" (emphasis, mine). I seriously doubt that this page could ever serve as a Valid Article, and as such, even short-term hosting is unacceptable. Achowat (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:FAKEARTICLE text also says, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Seems to allow a page that look like an article so long as userspace isn't being used to indefinitely host that page. The page also under the heading 'sandbox', which allows the user to carry out experiments. Without any evidence, who are we to say whether something is or is not an experiment for a user? That's a personal thing and if it is being carried out in a user space sand box for a reasonable time, then I don't see WP:UP preventing it, especially in view of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and that sandboxs are a place with fewer rules and policies than other pages on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would appropriately be deleted if it were in userspace for a very long time, without becoming an article, but we normally allow at least a month, and longer if there is any reasonable chance--I doubt this will be found notable, but it is reasonable to give it a chance.. The purpose of afc is to help people improve articles to a standard which will make them suitable, while preventing them from submitting articles that would fail speedy, and discouraging them from submitting ones that are otherwise hopeless. If they insist on trying for a community decision, the way to go if it would pass speedy is for it to be moved into article space and afd'd -- which they would have had a perfect right to do if they had not used afc. DGG (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree 100% w/DGG's statement... I was about to express the exact same sentiment. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 03:45, 19 August 2012 (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.