Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Angel David/God


 * 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 debate was Delete. The consensus below is that, while mentioning or discussing one's religious beliefs in the context of encyclopedic work is perfectly acceptable, an entire page which appears to exist primarily for theological advocacy is inappropriate. Note the tone of the page: it addresses the reader directly, as if to provoke her/his religious thinking; it offers straightforward tenets of belief, without offering any evidence of a connection to the encyclopedia. A userpage devoted to one's encyclopedic interest in theism, with evidence of user contributions and academic research, would be a different matter. The content of this page is of the sort one would find on MySpace. Xoloz 01:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Angel David/God
Wikipedia isn't your webhost. This type of content is best suited for a personal website, not Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Maxim (talk) (contributions)  21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is my namespace. Don't you have any respect for my page? Sorry was that an attack.--Angel David 21:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, David. You do not own your usespace. Please read the userpage policy carefully]]. And reading this one wouldn't hurt. --Maxim (talk) (contributions)  21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rai - me  21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a personal reflection. It doesn't serve a purpose of fostering encyclopedic collaboration, which is the purpose of user space. Users are given latitude to create drafts and such in user space, but this clearly could never be in the encyclopedia. It's just being used as a hosting space. Religious content is not what influenced my analysis; any hosted content not related to the encyclopedia should be removed from user space. Leebo  T / C 21:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any hosted content not related to the encyclopedia should be removed from user space - why? We don't need to worry about server space (and deletions don't affect it anyway, as deleted material stays in the archives). Applying a "rule" such as the above will achieve nothing, except biting new users and driving them away from Wikipedia. WaltonOne 16:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per all the above. John Carter 21:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Userspace isn't free bandwidth to broadcast opinions and use up resources&hellip;especially when it's on a topic as divisive as religion. -- VegitaU 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Coment don't get me wrong I'm against deletion as I say below but if it does get seleted why should it being about religion make a difference?-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense stop putting delete. Please stop!--Angel David 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are totally justified in doing such. Read policies WP:UP and WP:NOT. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, while we're on the subject of policy, JetLover, you could try reading this one. Then stop making terse comments like the above, which are more likely to drive the user away than to achieve anything. WaltonOne 16:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Angel David has also removed the MFD notice.  'Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) '' 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm sorry, sweetie, but Wikipedia is not a webhost. I'd be happy to help you with some encyclopedic content, if you wish. Love, Neran e i   (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 01:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, man, I really like the page, but it's just not related to Wikipedia.  --UsaSatsui 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete userspace is not for this, please read the user page policy. Oysterguitarist 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY Keep - WP;NOT only specifies the main user page not sub userpages. He's not violating policy we would be if would be if we delete.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quit wikilawyering, please. It is clearly not suitabe for Wikipedia, no matter how specific wp:not is. --Maxim (talk) (contributions)  16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't wikilawyering I was just stating the truth. But if that's wikilawyering charge me.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of policies this page doesn't violate. But try WP:USER and WP:SUBPAGE.  Subpages are supposed to be used for developing things for the encyclopedia, not for unrelated personal essays.  If the user in question can demonstrate how this could benefit Wikipedia, I'll gladly change my vote.  --UsaSatsui 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This subpage doesn't violate WP:SUBPAGE and even if it did nothing could be done with it cause it's just a guideline and not policy. I'll get back to you on the other one.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To continue WP:USER is also just a guideline and not policy so nothing could be done with it anyway plus it doesn't violate it.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE - And guidelines, despite being so, are considered the norm of enforcement on Wikipedia. Just because it doesn't have the golden status of "policy", it doesn't mean it cannot be enforced.--WaltCip 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant violation of WP:USER, WP:NOT, and WP:NOT. Does not aid in the development of the encyclopedia at all, per WP:SUBPAGE. Guidelines are only different from policy in that they are more flexible, they are not to be ignored completely because they are "just guidelines". --Coredesat 07:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you not read my comment? This page does NOT violate WP:USER or WP:SUBPAGE despite being just guidelines it doesn't violate it. You might want to re-read thoes "policies" of yours.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Monnitewars: Read them yourself, start adhering to the spirit of the policy/guideline, and quit wikilawyering. <font color="#FF7133">Maxim (talk) (contributions)  16:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is ya'll are twisting the policies/guidelines to get this subpage deleted. and I'm not wikilawyering I'm stating what those policies/guidelines actually says, so if the page does get deleted it gets deleted for the right reasons.I just read each and every guideline/policy you've stated and none but one says what you say.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per my reasoning in the essay Editors matter. Think it through. Will the deletion of this page have a net positive impact on the encyclopedia? No, it will not. All it's likely to achieve is possibly driving the user away, or making him less likely to contribute. As we don't need to worry about server space (and deletions don't affect it anyway, as deleted material stays in the archives), the only justification for deleting any userspace page is if it is divisive, inappropriate or inflammatory. This is not. I implore everyone to try using reasoned arguments based on net benefit/detriment to Wikipedia, rather than churning out meaningless Wikipedia-is-not-isms. WaltonOne 16:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just an essay, the others are policies and guidelines that apply to all namespaces. Something being in userspace does not (and never has) made it immune to deletion for violating policy. --Core<font color="#457541">desat 19:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But how, exactly, would it benefit Wikipedia to delete this page? In the end, the interests of the encyclopedia should be prioritised over adherence to petty rules. If we delete this page, we risk losing a good contributor. If we give the benefit of the doubt and leave this page in place, I can't see how the encyclopedia suffers. WaltonOne 20:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Walton, we can't risk losing a good contributor, as he doesn't contribute. <font face="Arial"><font color="#FF7133">Maxim (talk) (contributions)  20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Look a bit further back in his contribs. He was the original creator of this article (which incidentally survived AfD), and he's made good-faith, if misguided, edits in areas such as nominations for speedy deletion. He is a genuine contributor, and IMO we shouldn't drive him away over something so petty as this. WaltonOne 20:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maxim that's too far! Saying he doesn't contribute is a total exaduration.  While he doesn't have that many contributions outside his userspace, he still does make contributions.   Y   ДмΔќʃʀï →ГC←  10-22-2007 • 21:44:11
 * Keep Why delete it? We have userbars in subpages, we have sandboxes for junk, heck I've even seen pages similar to his (although not about The Lord) in other user's subpages (I'll try and find them if me not knowing them off the top of my head is a big deal).  What differance does it make if it sits there?  People have multiple viewpoints.  (I know, I know, the universal answer to disputes) Why not just protect the page if it's that much of a deal?  Hey, deleting something minor like this brings up the issue - why not delete the imagees that are simply for userpages people have made?   Y   ДмΔќʃʀï →ГC←  10-22-2007 • 21:44:11
 * Delete. Why?  Isn't it irrelevant but harmless?  No.  Pages like this will influence future editors to mistake Wikipedia for myspace or a personal blog.  Also, to be practical in this particular case, the creator of this page needs to understand that he is not the owner of any page on Wikipedia.  Keeping this kind of junk as "harmless" sends the wrong message to him, and everyone else. Friday (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. User pages are not immune to policy. --Core<font color="#457541">desat 00:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Would you people actually read the relevant sections? This little page is far from all those "excessive"s and "extreme"s listed in the article. Lighten up, geez, it's his user page. -- ⁪ffroth 02:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need to quote some page in a rule book saying that this exact content is allowed or disallowed. This is why we have MFD.  If there's a significant opinion that the content is inappropriate, it should go away. Friday (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Froth, it is not his userpage, WP:USER--12 Noon 20:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Religion is divisive. If this were one userbox, or one statement, or one quote, or even one or two paragraphs, then it would be more in-line with accepted practices.  But an entire page devoted to one's religion (whatever it may be) is "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration,..." etc.--12 Noon 20:12, 23 October 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.