Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Advanced Learning Institute/The Gift of Dyslexia




 * 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. Glass  Cobra  01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Advanced Learning Institute/The Gift of Dyslexia
Essay from an indefinitely blocked user. Long and detailed, but rather self-serving and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Quibik (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP is not free webspace, and it seems unlikely that the user who created this will work on it further or needs it to exist any longer. - Mobius Clock  14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now While I don't see a lot of value in this page, I also don't see a rush. My personal view for items such as this is to wait until six months have passed - just to cover the possibility that the editor successfully appeals the block and wants to do something with this that we can't discern. Ask me in June, and I'll support deletion.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per WP:NOTWEBHOST and per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This userspace draft of an indefinitely-blocked editor will not become an article because of its soapboxing. Even if the editor were not blocked, the content would still be inappropriate because none of it is related to Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See below. Cunard (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (Changed to Speedy Delete per G12  EdEColbert  Let me know 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) because the information could be useful to improving the encyclopedia, though not in its current form. Of course it's no good sitting in the userspace of a blocked user, so it should be brought to attention of someone working on the Dyslexia article or WikiProject Psychology. If even one fact or one source can be used in a positive way in a real article, then we have a duty to find this out and not arbitrarily delete it because it is mixed in with some original research. It's not clear to me that "none of it is related to Wikipedia" and the standard should not be whether this one particular user will ever be able to use the information but whether any user could be able to add this to a real article. I agree there's no rush.  EdEColbert  Let me know  12:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://crackingthelearningcode.com/GiftDyslexia.pdf. This content is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.