Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arvind as nitro

 __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  no consensus to delete. Note that I didn't add oldmfd to the talk page as it's a user talk page. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Arvind as nitro


WP:FAKEARTICLE ZZArch  talk to me 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not think this exceeds what is permissible under WP:UP. In fact, I came from deleting the article containing this material, to give this user the userfy template telling him that his user page was the place for this sort of stuff, within limits. I have advised him to write it in the first person and to make it look less like an article. JohnCD (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the information contained on this page could easily be on any User Page. Name, country of origin, occupation, alma mater, birthdate, hometown, some information about his family...all of that seems aceptable. Can we require the User to use Template:Userpage? Because it seems that the only issue is the use of Template:Infobox person, which by itself, does not constitute WP:FAKEARTICLE. Achowat (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:JohnCD and User:Achowat would be right except that the user's serious contributions to the project must be considered.  In this case, wwe have a single-edit user, and the edit creates a promotional userpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need to look into the User's Contributions; well, not in this case. The WP:UP "rules" apply to everyone. Anything that's acceptable for one user to have is acceptable for all users to have. We keep olde User Pages around just in case the User comes back, and this page seems no different to me. Achowat (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The question here is whether the intention is promotion.  SPA promotion accounts are very easily identified, and when done so, it is not necessary to fully investigate possible notability of the subject.  This is an SPA, and the page is promotion.  It describes a person while making no claim of signicance (cf WP:CSD#A7, see Arvind as nitro) and it includes an external link to facebook.  Also, user-self-describing information has always, as it should, been required to be in balance with the editors serious project-orientated contributions.  In this case, they are zero.  As this is not a project-contributing Wikipedian, there is no purpose in an introduction.  If this person is interested in the project, he should respond to the welcome on his user talk page, or to any of the other messages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears we have a different definition of the word "promotional". He offers nothing but demographic information; he isn't selling a product or service. I've seen facebook links on userpages before, it's not like the link goes to a promotional page for a business or company. It's hard to identify an SPA based solely on one edit. (Isn't every account with only on edit, tautologically an SPA?). As a general guideline we don't delete user's pages, in case they come back. I just fail to see how this page is harmful or opposed to policy. I understand and respect your opinion on the matter, but I just think that for a page to be "promotional" it needs to be actively promoting a good or service. Achowat (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Promotional? The only edit is autobiographical, with no indication of notability or project interest, and includes an external link to facebook.  Yes, I call that “promotion”, and we see a lot of such pages here.
 * Facebook links, company website links, blog links, publication lists, etc, are welcome for productive editors, and not for non-productive editors. The users contributions matter.   Userspace is for editors.  Posting your biography and external links on a userpage does not make you an editor.
 * A one-edit user, where that edit had a single purpose, is a Single Purpose Account. There are many of them.  SPA-self-promoting accounts return to become productive so rarely that I have never seen one do so.  Should he actually return with an interest in contributing, he’ll readily get the page undeleted by asking.
 * I used to argue against deletion of userpages, as it is a counter-welcoming move. However, I have since learned that SPA-promotional accounts are many, and are not known to redeem.  This applies to accounts publishing personal information (always with a facebook or similar link), advocacy, spam, or commercial advertising.  All of these things are “abuse of wikipedia as a free high traffic webhost”, and so such activities should be quickly and efficiently removed on discovery.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, we can also fix the user page, winding it back to what is acceptable for a prospective editor, done here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, let's take a look at all of the changes you made. 1. You added the date the User registered. 2. You removed his father and mother's names. 3. You removed the year he graduated from college. 4. You removed the link to his facebook. 5. You removed the Infobox. I'll bite, (4) seems like a reasonable idea, but I'd like to know your rationale for the other 4 edits you've made and why it makes the page less "promotional". Achowat (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. The date the user registered is an explicit reminder that this is a userpage, not an article, and is a prompt for the user to add userpage style information.  (note that the userpage was actually created identically (I guess) to the article that was speedied per A7, and I think that the user thinks of this page as a pseudo-article.


 * 2&3. This is, I presume, completely unnecessary to introducing the new user, and removal makes the page less like an article-biography.


 * 4. The facebook link is the most serious single item that makes the userpage substantially promotional. Non-serious contributors (as measured by mainspace edits that stick, are not entitled to external links).


 * 5. The infobox didn’t really work.  It mostly contained missing information, including a deleted or broken image link.  Overall, it was a remnant of the article-template that the user originally placed in mainspace while creating his autobiography-article.


 * Overall, my edits demonstrate that editing is required to turn the article into a userpage, and my edits serve as an example to the user of how to do so. I previously was working on the assumption that the user will never return, as his intention appeared purely promotional, but if he does return and interact in any way, it will be good sign.  Generally, I consider that edits to an unsuitable userpage are a useful way to prompt interaction from the new user.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the user returns, I'd also suggest that he convert the userpage from third-person to first person. I won't do that myself, as I think only the user should write about himself in first person.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:FAKEARTICLE . -- Klein zach  03:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe's update seems acceptable, much better than out-right deletion. Achowat (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2012 (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.