Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amitgahlyan06

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: keep. It's not ideal to put all your info on WP, but if that's what you want to do, there's nothing stopping you. User has some good-faith contribs, so doesn't qualify as U5. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Amitgahlyan06


From top to bottom, this is an inappropriate use of a userpage. I took the kinder, gentler approach and simply blanked it, per NPP guidelines, but an administrator took umbrage at that, claiming on my talk page I had somehow accused the user of something. So here we are. First, user is falsely claiming this userpage is an article in a bright yellow box at the top. Second, he's posting his unsubstantiated resume, which interestingly enough, includes something to do with SEO. Third, he's piped his username in two separate places to make it appear he has an article on him in en.wiki, which, likely not coincidentally, he is creating in draft space. Fourth, he has claimed credit for "management" of numerous pages on another language edition of Wikipedia, in a couple places linking to articles in english.wiki that he has never edited. Links to off wiki websites that he claims to have edited are featured, along with links to his personal Facebook and Twitter accounts. He's got several drafts going, all, again likely not coincidentally, of bios for people with the same surname as him. That eliminates speedy as not webhost, but the page is still clearly speedyable as strictly promo. However, I'm reasonably certain aforementioned administrator would simply remove a speedy, so we'll just let the community decide. John from Idegon (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The would be me. My sole comment on the matter was this edit where I wrote  I didn't in any way suggest that   was "accusing" anyone of anything. I asked in what way he found the page to violate the WP:UP guideline. He declined to explain his action, in this edit where he wrote  Since I couldn't see a valid reason for blanking, and the editor declined to explain, I reverted. I will admit that i don't see a valid reason for speedy deletion either, nor for regular deletion, but I will address that below. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably not delete, but not sure what would be best - Not typical to have an address in there (blanking may be appropriate if the user does not understand the purpose/visibility of a user page), but most of it looks to have to do with various on-wiki and off-wiki efforts to document their local history. If their only edits were to create this page and/or if it had nothing at all to do with their on-wiki work, I would probably !vote delete per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. But it does seem reasonably well intentioned despite what they want to do probably not being appropriate for Wikipedia in the end (unsourced local history). If all of the same information were instead presented in big towers of userboxes, presumably there would be no problem? :P (sorry, couldn't resist :) fwiw I have more than a couple userboxes myself) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to me to be more or less in compliance with User pages Let us examine the stated reasons for deletion:
 * The nomination statement ("nom" below) says: . The editor is obviously new to Wikipedia, and I am willing to assume that the distinction between "article" and "user page" is not clear to the editor at this point. Many editors do include a statement on a user page indicating who the page is about. I myself include User page which preforms somewhat the same function, as well as a paragraph signed with my legal name.
 * The nom says: . The editor names several fields and a degree he claims to hold, and another he says he is working on. I would hardly call that a resume, as it names no specific positions or employers, and no dates, and does not appear to be soliciting employment or indeed anything. It may be a bit boastful in phrasing, but it seems to come under WP:UP's This seems to be a list of fields in which the editor claims knowledge.
 * The nom says The user name is piped to what looks to me like a name, presumably the editor's actual name, or what he wants regraded as his actual name. I see no suggestion that this is an article. But again, many new users fail to understand our guideline on autobiography, and assume that creating an autobiographical article is perfectly acceptable. This is not grounds for deleting a user page, or blanking it, even if there is a direct link to such an article, which here there is not. It is not even grounds for deleting an autobiographical draft, unless it falls under WP:SPAM, or some other valid reason for deletion.
 * The nom says I don't know if the editor has, in fact, created or edited any of these articles on the Jatland  version of Wikipedia. If so, this may be simply a failure to understand how to link to a different project.
 * The nom says WP:UP says
 * The nom says . Exactly what is being promoted? Links to drafts that an editor has created are absolutely normal, indeed encouraged, on an editor's user page. WP:UP mentions as acceptable: These particular drafts may well be found not suitable because they are not about notable persons. But a new user is not presumed to understand wikipedia's notability guidelines thoroughly. That is why we have AfC and many help pages on notability issues.
 * In short, I do not find any of the reasons given about for deletion persuasive. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is excessively self-promotional. Fix it.  Come to mfd only if fixing gets reverted.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:SmokeyJoe - Who should fix it? It is a user page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The nominator should ask the user to fix it. The nominator can attempt to fix it.  These things should be tried before coming to mfd. It has problems, but deletion is not the first response. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I blanked it. Another user, not the page holder restored it. After that,, what other choice did I have? I had, and still have a good faith belief that this is not an appropriate userpage. Blanking is an appropriate response on NPP for unsatisfactory userpage. An uninvolved editor interceded, and not on behalf of the user whose page it is. Please look at the history and get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers. John from Idegon (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies John, I missed that. In that case Delete unless the user can explain himself here and now.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I thought that the name was familiar. This editor has created a large number of unsourced drafts, mostly about non-notable people that I have tagged as NSFW, one about a village.  The village is a named inhabited place and will pass notability, but the draft has no references and consists only of the author's comments.  So the editor is creating crud in draft space.  That isn't relevant to whether the user page should be deleted.  I would tag it with U5 except that other editors have said it is within limits.  As it is, Wikipedia is not for resumes still applies.  Therefore my conclusion is:
 * Delete this page (leaving the rest of the crud alone). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , how is this a resume? It lists some things the editor claims to have done in very general terms, but with no details, no dates, no past employers, and it lists a degree but no school where that degree was taken. If this is a resume, then what could ever count as the  that is specifically allowed by WP:UPYES. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:UPYES. An address is unusual but not disallowed. I made a slight adjustment that removed the only part I believe was truly problematic with the page itself. The contributions section is particularly appropriate for a userpage. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits to the page that removed all the borderline WP:FAKEARTICLE-esque content and left what is seemingly reasonable. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep doesn't look that bad to me (as of this writing). If excessive links/etc are restored, probably best handled as a behavioral issue. VQuakr (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep because I don't see the issue - and the yellow box doesn't look at all misleading ot me. Amisom (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2018 (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.