User talk:WCFrancis/Archive08

Sin Star
I deleted your Sin Star subpage, as previously deleted content. You've not done any work on it since January so it doesn't seem to be a work in process to fix the causes of deletion. If you intend to fix it up and try again let me know and I'll undelete it, but resotred deleted content in userspace is only acceptable where there is an active attempt to fix the problems. Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of personal sub-pages
Reference Sinstar. I thought that personal sub-pages were exactly that - personal.

There were no links to it from article pages - only links were from my talk. So why it was deleted is a mystery to me. What gain except a couple thousand bytes of storage? What is the point? Not that it was an important article, and I probably should have removed myself, but why didn't you get my response 'before deletion?

Incidentally, the article was stored like that since it was a fangirl written piece that resulted in an amazing discussion regarding deletion that ended up driving the writer away from Wikipedia. (My talk with her has also been saved in my talk archives.) She had done a thorough job but the controversy was regarding the nebulous issue of "notability", which had no decent guidance on definition other than consensus. The debate got unnecessarily acrimonious. The article was reasonably supportable and well written. Wikipedia lost a potential enthusiastic editor with clear writing ability over this and I felt it was a example of one of the weaknesses of wikipedia.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? Originally posted 08/14/2006 - check history if you question this.wcf Facts are stubborn.


 * Is there a reason you have not replied to the above?
 * wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have been away in the States for a week and haven't yet recovered from jet-lag, I caught up with some things before others.
 * User sub-pages are not personal any more than any other page on Wikipedia. Nobody owns them.  Articles moved to user space after result of deletion debates can be kept for a while but in the end they have to be either fixed or removed, because Wikipedia is not a free web host.  We allow users to sday something about themselves on their user page because although Wikipedia is not a social networking site there is a degree of social networking between editors and using user space to facilitate communication between them, within certain limits, seems to help to build the encyclopadia.  I regret the departure of any Wikipedian (although my definition of Wikipeidan does not include those who come here to push a barrow), and AfD is not a great place some of the time, but in the end fanpages generally get deleted.  It's not about notability, it's about verifiability from reliable secondary sources.  Fanpieces are no different from novel interpretations of historical events in this respect: Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  If you want to fix up the article or need the text to take to your own website there are plenty of admins - including me - who will gladly facilitate that, but consensus deleted content is to be deleted, not moved to some place where it gets less scrutiny.  Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of my points was the material was verifiable, and was deleted as non-notable. I don't care about that article and you were right to delete it under the policy. If you would, you could also clear out some other pages which I have tagged for speedy under owner request. Thanks.____wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)