Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bakergab1


 * 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 Move to user sandbox and Blank. The WP:NOT and WP:SOAPBOX arguments were strongest, but due to the overwhelming ammount of WP:BITE supporters this has not been closed as a complete Delete. This page appears to be a cut and paste page made for some other purpose, and does not appear to be original research, but and argument paper lacking citations. Even assuming great faith, this does not appear to be the workings of a user page anywhere in line with the user page guidelines. In the interest of BITE and AGF that this may be material suited to be incorporated in to an article one day (perhaps Pro-life) I've moved this to a user sandbox at User:Bakergab1/Sandbox. Moving it to a sandbox would allow for it to be worked on further if this is a bona fide editor. I've also blanked the page so as not to encourage more search engine caching of it, but have left the user a message, including directions on how to access the page should they ever return. — xaosflux  Talk  02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Bakergab1
Blatant point-pushing. Unfit to be an article. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace, or place for personal essays unrelated to wikipedia editing. Ironholds 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep. We allow wide latitute in userspace.  This explains a user viewpoint in non-offensive terms.  We don't delete even when it is offensive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep First, this isn't an article. It's userspace, it's non-offensive, and it's not doing any harm. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't mean it is an article, i simply meant that one argument commonly used for such pages is "well, he could be refining it to turn into a mainspace article". My apologies for not explaining that properly. Ir<b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 23:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - the user is brand new, he registered his account about 5 hours ago. However, Wikipedia isn't a webhost or blog, if he doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, it should be deleted in the future. Mr.Z-man 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for Now This user is new, and if we deleted this it wouldn't give him a good first impression of Wikipedia. We must be mindful of WP:BITE. We don't want to lose someone who might become a progressive member of our community. However, this does violate our guidelines. WP:NOT states that wikipedia isn't a place for personal essays that talk about your views on issues, a tool to use for any kind of advocacy, opinion pieces, or a blog. This user page violates all these parts of WP:NOT. This page also violates WP:USER. WP:USER pretty much says that the majority of user space should relate to wikipedia. This doesn't relate to wikipedia at all. What I suggest is that we give him some time to change his page, and put it up for deletion in a little while if he fails to do so.--SJP (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * May i suggest this; we take4 the deletion period as the time given. If it hasn't been changed within the 7-odd days (I once had one go unnoticed for two weeks) until the MfD is closed, we assume he is unlikely to be a contributor and is using this as a soapboxing space and come to a common consensus of Delete. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This confrontational, rules based approach to correcting newcomer behaviour is known to be not particularly effective. It is better to engage people in dialogue, to respect their opinions, and to not deny them the right to make thier own decisions, especially when they are in no way hurting anyone or anything.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do respect his opinion (in this case, obviously, that abortion is murder). But he has failed to contribute anything to wikipedia other than this, which violates the rules on personal essays, WP:NOT and soapboxing. I fail to see why we should keep content that is of no use to wikipedia and violates several of our policies regardless of the users newcomer status. As I said, he has not actually edited a single page unrelated to this, so I dont consider him an editor in the traditional sense. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 13:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAPBOX-- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now just in case we are biting an useful contributor --Enric Naval (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but warn the user of policy. It's a bit too early to delete it. Bart133 (t) (c) 00:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note again that he (so far) hasn't actually created anything on wikipedia apart from the page involved which even he describes here as a "paper". I'm assuming it's some kind of homework assignment. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 00:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - strong POV essay to userspace, no signs of interest in the project.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:01, 21 June 2008 (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.