Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alastor Moody/Hypothetical Hurricanes/Atlantic/Hypothetical Hurricane 1


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was DELETE. No evidence is presented that this helps the Wikipedia, and a sufficient number of commentors hold that it ought to be deleted. Herostratus 13:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alastor Moody/Hypothetical Hurricanes/Atlantic/Hypothetical Hurricane 1
The page is about a hypothetical hurricane, and serves no purpose. Personally, I find it a bit offensive, given that the author theorizes about 3 people being killed. It makes no sense, and doesn't count under what is allowed as a user subpage, as it is exceedingly unencyclopediac. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This states that the pages are being used to test tropical cyclone writting skills. Would it be more appropriate to move it to a personal sandbox, where the text is only used to test writting skills, and the text is not permanent and can be blanked or replaced with other content? Thanks. – A  stroHur  ricane  00  1 ( Talk + Contribs + Ubx ) ( + sign here + How's my editing? ) 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That was before being warned of creating "hypothetical storms" (see user page). Subsequently, the user stopped with the hypothetical pages on Wikipedia and switched to using Wikia. As the user has not written a single tropical cyclone article (ever), I don't see the need to keep something filled with spelling and grammar errors and content that other users could be potentially confused by upon seeing it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a user sandbox/test page. There's nothing inherently wrong about it.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was only used for one day, and has not been edited since November 7, 2007. What is wrong about it is its poor spelling and grammar and its inappropriate nature (if someone wanted to write a tropical cyclone article to test their skills, it would have been more appropriate to have it not affect land; instead the article predicts 4 deaths and damage). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep . Per Bibliomaniac15. — xaosflux  Talk  00:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to No !vote. — xaosflux  Talk  12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT. If it's no longer used as such (user sandbox/test page), no need to keep it. – Chacor 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, sandbox page. Don't see any harm in it. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The harm in keeping it is that people could get confused if they see it, as it does currently show up in outside categories. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then delete the cats. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have to remove the infobox to remove from the cats, and as that's a major part of the article it wouldn't make much sense to do so if it were kept. Furthermore, as Chacor mentioned, Wikipedia is not a webhost. The article is not used, and hasn't been since the day the author made it. Additionally, the article is the #1 Google hit while searching for Hurricane Cathy. As there was no Hurricane Cathy, this could confuse people searching for such a term. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again easily solved. Tag it with the userpage warning. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't solve the problem that the article has not been touched since November, it inconsiderately predicts the deaths of 4 people, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. What is the harm in deleting it? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While usually I'm quite lenient with userpage content (browse my MFD contribs for that), this page is not following its intended purpose, and the user is mostly inactive. There is no actual need to keep this around, and due to technical concerns with, this page is catalogued in article categories. The userspace tag is not a solution that is adequate enough for my taste, so delete. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The bit about being placed in content categories isn't strictly relevant, not only is it fixable it is now fixed. That template is in the process of being deprecated anyway...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As AstroHurricane showed above, the hypothetical hurricane user subpages are only for to pratice on my writing skills. Also, since there hasn't been a real Hurricane Cathy, no one would probably even know or care about it. And why I only edited that article for only one day because... it was all completed in one day. And just because I'm inactive dosen't mean ya can come around and destroy my userpage. &mdash; Alastor Moody (T + C + U) 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then find some better place to host it. We're not for that. If you're no longer using it, it should be deleted, especially on such a touchy subject as deaths and destruction. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its fatalities were only 3 direct deaths and its total damage was merely $1.7 million, a just a low amount compared to other tropical cyclones. Speaking of which, the article I made isn't really a "doomsday" storm. &mdash; Alastor Moody (T + C + U) 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Wikipedia is not your webhost, and will never be. End of story. I would strongly suggest that you choose to voluntarily move the page to the hypothetical hurricanes scratchpad wikia, and ask for the page here to be removed. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. This article will never be sent to mainspace, so there's no real point in keeping it around, especially since it's 10 months old and the user in question has other places where he can practice his writing skills (Scratchpad, for instance). --Core desat 18:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The user has appeared here, and doesn't seem to grasp WP:NOT. If he wishes to "test writing skills", he may do that temporarily in a sandbox.  His poor reasoning in defending the page is ultimately what pushes me to conclude it should go.  He admits, at least tacitly, that he has no further use for the page, and asks that exist permanently as a record of his test.  This is certainly not what userpages are for, and his sentiment fails to comprehend WP:OWN. Xoloz 21:04, 19 April 2007 (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.