Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beehold (2nd nomination)




 * 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  move to user subpage at User:Beehold/Fledgling Jason Steed. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Beehold
Userpage consists of a page which was deleted twice at AfD (See this and this}. "Article" shows no marked signs of improvement from previous deletion discussions (the provided references are still largely minor, trivial, or primary sources), and its presence is in direct violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep - based on WP:EM and WP:UP. The page consists of a version of a previously deleted page, which I am working on regularly to source correctly (please check history to verify), in the hope of adding it to WP once the book is republished by Sourcebooks Inc in the autumn. I have no intention of moving it into main space until it satisfies all WP criteria and, as such, it has the This is a Wikipedia user page message at the top, to prevent any confusion.

This page has been subject to one other MFD discussion, which can bee seen at, in which I followed all suggestions and was allowed to keep the page - on the condition I restricted the article to one version and regularly tried to improve it. This I have done, and continue to do. Unfortunately, just after uploading a new reference yesterday, it obviously caught the eye of MikeWazowski.

I have a previous history with MikeWazowski over this topic, which can easily be traced by people more WP capable than I, and believe he has started this MfD to try and make a WP POINT. Indeed, he deleted my whole userpage yesterday, claiming it was WP:FAKEARTICLE. However, as the usepage has been vetted and cleared by several admins, I do not believe I am doing anything wrong.

User page states: ''Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian. Pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project''. This is what I am trying to do. My userpage does not feature any of the examples listed by WP:UP at What may I not have on my user page? and Policy is not a trump card according to WP:EM. I have the very best interests of Wikipedia at heart, as I want to eventually add an article to main space which is already hugely popular on Google and the internet in general - and merits a lengthy mention on Worldcat. --Beehold (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this draft doesn't really seem to be making moves toward the mainspace. Didn't we already MfD this once before? Gigs (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see you linked it there Beehold. Thanks for that.  I stand by my assertion at the last MfD, it doesn't seem like you are here to build an encyclopedia.  In the 5 months since the last MfD your contributions have been extremely minor.  You seem to be here to promote your book, not work on the encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick point. Unfortunately, this is NOT my book. I wish it was - as I suspect it will be a huge hit. Aside from that, I can't really take the article much more forward towards mainspace Gigs, until the WP notable press articles start getting printed. (Which, I'm guessing, will be around July/August, just before the launch.) There are other bits and bobs out there though, which I'm adding as I come across them. Hence, I am working towards the "big day" as it were, but am trying not to trouble anyone while doing it. (I.E. by putting it into main space too early, hence laying it open for yet another MFD). This "article in waiting" was sitting peacefully on my user page for months without problems - until now.--Beehold (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just save it on your hard drive in the mean time? Gigs (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't save it to hard-drive - I work on it on a public library computer. As to not working more on Wikipedia since the last MfD - well, to say I was put off contributing is to make an understatement. I was vilified by more experienced Wikipedia editors at around that time (and since), who - rather than help a newbie, just decided to wage war against me instead. Bullying is probably a good term for it. I have kept an eye on stuff I wrote originally, like J.L. Thompson and Sons, but I defy anyone, in the face of constant criticism, deletion of work etc to maintain any sort of enthusiasm for a project which is voluntary. My one remaining WP interest is in this article, as I have spent so many hours on it. The book is already well known, it will soon be hugely notable. I am merely trying to have something ready for when it is WP Notable.   --Beehold (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Get a gmail account and email it to yourself.  It seems like you are really grasping at straws. Gigs (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In case there is any remaining doubt, this book is already published, and has been since September 2008. It is published by Infinity Publishing which is a print on demand vanity press.  17:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to anonymous note above, the book was indeed self-published in 2008, (as stated clearly in the piece I have written), but it is being re-published by Soucebooks Inc later this year.--Beehold (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to user subpage. It isn't a proper use of the user page, but it is a proper use of a user subpage. Will it ever turn out to be a decent article? I don't know, but it has more promise than many other subpages. -- SPhilbrick  T  21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to subpage -- its a reasonable draft for an article. The right course to take with people not working hard enough is not to   remove whatever they have done, butto encourage them to do more.    DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The astroturf nature of all the "reviews" posted for this book should be considered. We are being used here as a promotional vehicle for a non-notable self-published book. I have added  as  only includes it as an optional parameter.  Gigs (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (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.