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 delete all except /literature. Portolanero has had eight days to copy this material off-site, but I will supply email copies if asked. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I list below the pages deleted:

• User:Portolanero/Caerte van Oostlant
• User:Portolanero/DR Page
• User:Portolanero/Pizigani 1367 Chart
• User:Portolanero/The Maps of King Arthur
• User:Portolanero/Traces of a Classical Portolan World Map
• User:Portolanero/Carte Pisane
• User:Portolanero/Leonardo's Bicycle
• User:Portolanero/Synopsis - Timeline
• User:Portolanero/The Problem of the Portolan Charts
• User:Portolanero/Traces of the Source Atlas
• User:Portolanero/Cartometric Analysis II
• User:Portolanero/The History of Portolan Research
• User:Portolanero/The Ptolemy Problem
• User:Portolanero/Unrecognized Classical Transmissions

not deleted:

• User:Portolanero/Literature

These pages per discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_refuses_to_NOINDEX_their_collection_of_WP:FAKEARTICLEs_kept_in_their_userspace. NE Ent 18:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except possibly User:Portolanero/Literature; according to the author's talk page these are not meant as article drafts, and those I checked suffered severe WP:OR and WP:SYN problems, maybe also WP:FRINGE. The literature page is just a list of sources and might serve as a tool to improve out Portolan chart article; the others would probably have to be rewritten from scratch to become useful. Huon (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all (except the one Huon noted above). Portolanero's comment here seems to sum up the purpose of those pages, which squarely falls under WP:NOTESSAY; Wikipedia is not for "unique material" or information "published for the first time," nor should it be used solely as a platform to promote new ideas and get exposure for those ideas. - SudoGhost 19:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTWEBHOST. GiantSnowman 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also agree with the exception of the Literature list of possible sources. — Ched :  ?  19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Delete Yeah, the info is more suitable for a blog or personal website. I kind of feel bad for the user, b/c it seems like had he/she simply accepted not indexing the page, this discussion could have been avoided. Does seem like a lot of work put in to this, and there are nuggets of encyclopedic content in the subpages that could perhaps be conformed to standards. But it seems unfortunately apparent that is not this user's intent, so, yep, delete all accept the list of sources per above. (Again, why are userspace pages indexed in the first place? I can't think of any good reason for doing this.) Ditch ∝ 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw mentioned at the ANI thread the suggestion of creating a Wikia site, which I thought was a very good idea. — Ched :  ?  20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Judging by the user's recent explanation of their goals, they have mistaken Wikipedia for an academic journal. Hopefully they will find an appropriate home for their works. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, simply because this is not intended to be work that would fit in mainspace. I strongly urge that this be undeleted for transwiki to a Wikia site if requested by Portolanero or anyone else. And yes, I agree with Huon on the literature page, since bibliographies are quite suitable. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The user should keep this material offline on his own computer until such time as he wants to prepare it for submission as regular articles. Regarding the possible future use of User:Portolanero/Literature as an article, I have seen some bibliographies deleted at AFD so I have my doubts there. Also many of those references are from the 19th century. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - editor made it clear this was original research, some such as User:Portolanero/The Maps of King Arthur is out and out fringe. He's been using us as a website. Dougweller (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All of the wikipedia.org website is part of the Wikipedia project. Not all is part of the encyclopedia, but all of it must be in service of that project and working toward bettering that encyclopedia. We allow pretty considerable latitude about what people keep in their user spaces; but that latitude is not unlimited. Many people keep drafts of articles in their user spaces, and we're very patient about waiting for that content to come to fruition; but that patience is not indefinite. Userspace is not a private place over which one individual has absolute domain. When contents of userspace are not, and aren't likely to become articles, and don't contribute to the process and the community that builds the encyclopedia, they must be deleted. Portolanero has been working this garden for nearly three years, with hundreds of edits to a dozen pages. Yet with not a single (live or deleted) article space edit to Portolanero's name, and with none of these pages in any state to become reliably sourced encyclopedia articles, I don't believe it is appropriate for Wikipedia to host this content any longer. In the past we have removed content (and in some cases blocked contributors) where people were using Wikipedia to host their social lives, their game clan results, their blogs, and their sex lives. Content like this is worse, because it wears the clothes of a Wikipedia article, without meeting any of the standards required of one. A visitor chancing upon it might reasonably mistake it for an actual article, and it is worrying indeed that Portolanero has warred to prevent other editors from marking this material in a way that would avoid that mistake. So I agree with others here, that this isn't and won't be encyclopedia content and isn't working toward helping the encyclopedia - so it all has to go. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Falls under WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Comment made by user confirms violation of WP:NOR on all instances. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the alphabet soup above. This look it's heading toward SNOW territory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi, I've not commented on an AfD previously, but I've been asked by the user Portolanero to look into this. I don't know how long it takes to get one of these to come to completion, but a small delay would be appreciated. I'll put a post on wikiproject maps and see if we can grab as much encyclopedic content from the pages as possible before any deletion actually takes place. The content generated by this user has generally been sound, I've not checked out these specific pages yet. EdwardLane (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A proposal has been put forward on AN for Portolanero to move this material to a Wikia. It would be a sign of good faith if the deletion be held off until there Portolanero replies concerning this idea. Blackmane (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Portolanero has responded to that discussion, though he did not acknowledge the Wikia idea, but he's seen the suggestion. He's very aware of this discussion and that the data will very likely be removed from Wikipedia, so if he doesn't copy the data by the time this discussion closes then that's not Wikipedia's issue; Wikipedia is not a personal dropbox and copying that information will take maybe five minutes. Assuming this discussion is open for seven days that is more than enough time to copy the data and if it isn't then it can be emailed to him, but when external websites are citing the information then that information either needs to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or it needs to be removed from Wikipedia, and seven days is more than enough time for that data to be copied and moved if he desires to do so. - SudoGhost 18:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I totally agree. My aim was to at least make this known here as not everyone hits ANI regularly. Blackmane (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Delete - Might as well WP:SNOW this, since it fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTWEBHOST, since this seems more like personal website material than subpage material here. ZappaOMati 19:18, 19 February 2013 (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.