Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amanda szeglowski




 * 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. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 07:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Amanda szeglowski
A blatant advertisement; the page replaces the deleted Dance New Amsterdam, complete with a fee chart. Ms. Szeglowski, according to both the Dance New Amsterdam web site and her LinkedIn profile, is in charge of public relations for this dance company, which raises COI issues. The page has no pretense of being encyclopedic - it is strictly spam. Warrah (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think MFD is the best way of dealing with this issue. She already has a copy of the article in User:Dnadance/Dance_New_Amsterdam. I think someone needs to explain to her that she is not using her user page appropriately, and give her the opportunity to change the content, and if she still doesn't, then blank it. But I don't think deleting it is necessary -- there is nothing in the page (like copyvio, BLP, etc.) which would justify deletion as opposed to blanking. --SJK (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, this is a separate issue from her user space copy of the deleted article. If, after a decent period, she hasn't done any active work on trying to make her user space copy more encyclopedic, then it may well be appropriate to delete her user space copy. But I still don't see any justification for deleting her user page. --SJK (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The user page is clearly being used for the most obvious example of spam, complete with unambiguous text about pricing ("Membership ($30/yr) / Single class with membership $16"). Warrah (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but blank - I agree with SJK; while it is clearly inappropriate content for a user page, blanking would seem to be sufficient in this case. Davnor (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - After carefully re-reading the guidelines on deletion of user pages, I'm changing my vote. From the guideline: "Simple use as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion, although clear advertising and promotional use is." Thanks, Davnor (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and blank, then explain to the user why it is not appropriate to use a userpage as an advertisment.  MMS  2013  16:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no reason to retain blatant spam in the page history. In fact this should have just been speedied. Gigs (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. When first posted in mainspace, this material was quickly and correctly tagged for speedy deletion. The admin who userfied it gave it a considerable benefit of the doubt, and the draft should be nominated here soon if it isn't improved. But a second copy is unnecessary even in the unlikely case that the draft can be turned into a viable article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotion. Speediable.  Could well have been blanked as a preferred step before coming to MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. If it isn't wikified, cleaned up, referenced, and whatnot in a short period of time, I'll say delete next time.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Edit fee chart out. Heck, 90% of the time such an edit would avoid MfD entirely. Collect (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G11 applies cross-namespace. -- N  Y  Kevin  @005, i.e. 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." (mine emphasized) This userspace copy has been created by a single-purpose account whose sole purpose is to promote the subject of the article; no other edits outside of this topic have been made from this account. This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a non-notable dance company violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also delete User:Amanda szeglowski/Dance New Amsterdam, which contains the same content. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 6 April 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.