Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BSveen

 __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:  blanked. No consensus on whether it violated UPNOT the point that it required deletion or not, so in the absence of said consensus, blanking is the outcome as the lower of the two options. Daniel (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

User:BSveen

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Old userpage, but some of the statements on this user page are WP:UPNOT and some are defamatory. I was going to speedy as G10 but I want to get a second opinion before deletion. Awesome Aasim 23:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing there is defamatory, you just don't like it. 2603:7000:CF0:82A0:9C5A:9C94:17B0:9C0D (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - user has been gone since 2005. As for the content, I have mixed feelings:
 * I personally disagree with BSveen's fear and dislike of Muslims.
 * Some of the links are to what I'd call Islamo-skeptical or Islamo-wary sites. Some are links to downright anti-Muslim hate sites.
 * I'm normally inclined to give people a lot of latitude towards what they put on their user pages, including strong political or religious feelings I disagree with.
 * In this case, however, the net effect of the whole page is to make this place very hostile to our Muslim colleagues. It's a page of mean stuff they don't deserve to see.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You disagree with his views, therefore they must be deleted? 23.246.110.58 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete as inflammatory and divisive, with obvious anti-Muslim content. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 13:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the two strong delete arguments above, I decided to proceed with a speedy deletion nomination under G10. Of course an admin can revert or can snow close this. Awesome Aasim 14:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep the user dislikes a certain religion. Big deal. There's nothing "defamatory" about not liking Islam. Not to break WP:AGF, but the nominator claims to be a proud member of that religion. Should we delete his userpage too since other users might find his religion offensive? 23.246.110.58 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the user dislikes a certain religion. Big deal. That is not the issue. The issue is that it is written like a personal attack. Coupled with links to discredit conspiracy theorist bigoted sources it just Please take a look at WP:UPNOT - specifically, saying that you are against a religion can be interpreted as a WP:PA. Specifically WP:POLEMIC. Awesome Aasim 23:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also take a look at WP:ATA - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely a good reason why something should be kept. Awesome Aasim 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Moot as the page has now been blanked. I highly doubt that BSveen will return after 18 years to restore the content. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As the content as been restored, Blank per SmokeyJoe. Much as I strongly disagree with this user's views on the supposed "Islamification" of Europe, such views were only barely outside of the mainstream in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7 - I remember hearing the arguments. I don't think it is "defamatory" in any way. Furthermore it was from an editor with over 1k edits, not someone who made no other contributions to Wikipedia. They have long departed, just blank it and move on. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Inflammatory leftover from departed user. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blank only. “Inflammatory” is exaggeration. Good decline of the g10 tagging. There is a big difference between someone stating an opinion of their own that may be racist, and asserting something racist about a racial group.  And in any case, old uncomfortable things like this should be quietly dealt with by blanking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UPNOT Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blank: If this was userpage was the only edits by this user, it'd be a slamdunk delete and nothere block if it were recent, but this user has made 1k edits. The contents of this page discriminate against Islam and contradict UPNOT. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 06:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I restored the contents of the page per the MfD banner: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 06:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh @ClydeFranklin When I tested the G10 criteria, it got declined, but the G10 instructions ask to blank the page. Ahhh. Apparently the content was not restored after the MFD. Awesome Aasim 21:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or blank, WP:UPNOT and nobody's going to miss it. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates WP:UPNOT as noted by others. Hatman31 (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Blank it violates WP:UPNOT but it's not that bad to require deletion. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  14:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blank but not delete. Users were and are allowed to say foolish things about themselves. Let's not try to cover up the fact the user felt this way, but didn't choose to stay. BusterD (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2023 (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.