Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Charl Hattingh/Hashem yahuah

 __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  delete. The editor has also not responded (no edits for 10 days) to outreach by Sphilbrick and Phantomsteve. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 04:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Charl Hattingh/Hashem yahuah
User space copy of deleted article. Appears to be original research --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see, redirects pointing everywhere,  rants and references to YHWH,  unencyclopedic use of the first person,  reftag erros,  shouting ("KEY OF KNOWLEDGE"). Speedy delete as nonsense.  :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  18:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone trout the editor for not being encyclopedic? :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to TeleComNasSprVen: Would you please consider not using the symbols, as they are quite distracting.  Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" (mine emphasized). Because this page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cunard, nom, and WP:OR, WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UP, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I tend to favor wide latitude in user pages, but this is an overly long religious statement of belief (which is fine) that has no capability of being made into an encyclopedic article. It should be on a blog somewhere, but not here.  — Becksguy (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow. Per all above, I suppose.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree that this is more suited to a blog than an encyclopedia. Jusdafax  17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now). Editor is very new, and lacking in clue, but is making an effort to create an article. The effort is in user space, exactly where we ask new editors to work. Furthermore, the editor is asking for help. Even though I'd bet against this ever making it to article space, I'd prefer than when a new editor is struggling and asking for help, the best response is to provide some help, not wipe their efforts off the face of the earth.--  SPhilbrick  T  16:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have corrected redirects to wikilinks, and added a reflist - but this is pure OR from what I can see (for example: "But today I hope to shed some light on the subject of His Name") - there are no reliable sources, showing that this is thinking by anyone from a reliable site/book. I agree that we should help an editor where possible - but are you really suggesting that we help with something which is so obviously original research? Of course, if you can find some reliable, independent sources which discuss the concepts in this article, and can add them, I am willing to change my mind if I am satisfied with them! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By "help" I don't necessarily mean assuming that the only thing to do is to make the article better - but rather than just wipe it out, "help" the editor understand the challenge, and ideally, reach the conclusion that the undertaking is hopeless. If the page simply is deleted - the editor will not exactly form a positive impression about WP, and may leap to the incorrect conclusion that this place is biased against material of that type. I'd be much happier if the editor comes to realize that the effort is not consistent with the WP goals. I left one message at the editors talk page, I'll leave another re OR.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:36, 22 August 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.