Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Buggadugga/Mary Dalrymple




 * 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 delete --Xavexgoem (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Buggadugga/Mary Dalrymple
This user subpage appears to be total nonsense, clearly not going anywhere as an article. Does not qualify as a valid use of userspace per WP:USER. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A limited bit of nonsense is allowed in userspace, indeed. Editor is not SPA for the page and page was nominated about a half hour after creation.  Collect (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just curious, and I'm asking in complete sincerity... but what degree of nonsense do you think should be allowed in userpace? It seems to me, IMHO, that anything not at least minutely, tangentially related to Wikipedia automatically runs afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is total gibberish. I'm all for having fun and being silly on user pages... but really? Vicenarian  (T · C) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say three paragraphs makes sense :).  Precedent is clear -- if we were to delete everything not encyclopidic in userspace, we would have almost nothing in userspace.  Did you count how many people have collections of userboxes? pictures"  This does not come close to the line if one were to be drawn. Collect (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between encyclopedic and "somehow related to the encyclopedia, even slightly". This is nonsense that has nothing to do with wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly, Gigs. There's all sorts of perfectly legitimate silly stuff in userspace, but all of it has something to do with Wikipedia, even if only a tiny bit. This page, however, no matter how hard you try to find one, does not have a connection to WP. And I tried! :) Vicenarian  (T · C) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On Buggadugga's userpage, she indicates that Mary Dalrymple is someone she knows. I'm not sure enough to hit the speedy button right away, but I'm concerned this may be some sort of attack or harassment page that should be gotten rid of. This is even more troublesome if the page is Google searchable. Would welcome another admin taking a look at this without necessarily waiting the 5 days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe this refers to the user's cat, as he/she repeatedly recreated a page with this name in the main encyclopedia... with a picture of a cat and more gibberish. Mary Dalrymple. And not to step on the toes of WP:ADHOM, but this user also was warned for using two sockpuppets to attempt to prevent the deletion of the aforementioned page. Vicenarian  (T · C) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as harmless nonsense. Sockpuppetry, or past versions in mainspace, now deleted, have no bearing on this MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As user is presumed to be permanently blocked, convert to a redirect to her userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, what I said in my comment above does not have any bearing to this discussion and it casts doubt on whether my nomination was in good faith. I should not have brought it up, and have stricken it. Vicenarian  (T · C) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as useless nonsense, possible living person issues, and etc. Gigs (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and User page: "Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project." By no stretch of my imagination, at least, can I see this as being part of an effort to contribute to the encyclopedia. Also note that the subpage was created by a different user account: . For the future, I would recommend attempting to discuss the issue with the user before initiating a deletion nomination—it may not always work but I think that it's usually (there are exceptions) the best first step when dealing with user page and subpages. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 06:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you, but in this instance, I don't think talking would've been of much use. Vicenarian  (T · C) 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Delete as G5. The user is now blocked as a sock.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  19:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Criterion G5 applies only to pages created by banned users (not just blocked ones) after they were banned. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Speedy deletion does not apply, but I would like to suggest invocation of WP:SNOW, as this user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. Since this user will no longer be around, there is certainly no need to have this page. Vicenarian  (T · C)
 * Delete No need to keep around a nonsense subpage of a indef blocked user. t'shael  mindmeld 11:29, 4 June 2009 (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.