Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chip Yates

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Chip Yates
Remove per WP:FAKEARTICLE. User apparently copied this from a now-deleted article. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Abandoned, promotional, unsourced BLP WP:FAKEARTICLE. Wikipedia is not a resume service. This page represents the user's only live edit, which was made in 2009. MER-C 04:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep . Slap Drmies for This was a bitey edit.  Apologise to, and encourage him to move the draft into his own userspace or directly to mainspace (with reverted improvements added back.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what, Joe--first of all, come on now (your imperatives aren't very friendly either). Second, it wasn't until I saw some other MfDs here that it seemed likely that people get to user space by accident, thinking something is an article, and I still wonder how that happens. But I'll drop a note on that user's page when I have a moment. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice note you posted to Swigzracing. I withdraw the slap.  Note that the userpage is highly ranked by google, I addeded NOINDEX, I thought that noindexing was by default in userspace?  What are "imperatives"?  We should link to Articles for deletion/Chip Yates, and also ask Swigzracing to consider some of the points made there.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Imperative mood. Like Drmies, I find your imperatives to be arrogant and lacking collegiality. That Drmies followed your sound but cavalierly given advice speaks volumes about his character. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see how what I wrote is being read. I did not intend with "Apologise to..." to imperatively direct Drmies, but intended, as if a new dot point, that "we" wikipedians, or just me, should apologise to Swigzracing for unceremoniously rejecting his first contributions.  I assume that Swigzracing found the site via google and that this is his first encounter with the project, and I was writing for be benefit of Swigzracing, who I assume is reading this.  In fact, I would not direct anyone to apologise in such a manner, being much in line with the views found at User:Geo Swan/On apologies.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe certainly had a point that I could have done a better job explaining to the editor why I reverted them; at the time, I left a welcome template, but that's kind of an easy way out, I realize. Joe, your email message was received in the same spirit in which I believe it was sent, and there are no bad feelings. Thank you Cunard, thank you Joe. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On looking closely again at the page, I am pleased to see Swigzracing added in-line references of a kind, but unfortunately they were not of the "independent" "secondary source" kind, and little progress has been made in overcoming the reasons for deletion at the AfD. I suggest to Swigzracing that if he can find third party sources that discuss the subject directly, that he request userfication for himself and insert them, and ask someone for advice.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Old AfD-ed content.  Insufficient progress in overcoming the reasons for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE or at the very least WP:STALEDRAFT (a subtle distinction?) Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  11:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 19 may shed some light on the distinction between WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:STALEDRAFT. They refer to the same section of a guideline though have different connotations depending on how editors interpret them. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Klein  zach  01:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't get to rejigger deleted articles into user space like this. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Stale? Likely. Can people edit other people's userpages? Yes.  In fact, one user appears to make this a strong point.   Is userspace mainspace? Nope.  Are short c.v.s allowed in userspace? Yes, if the user actually edits something on WP.  Can a new user try to make an article out of what he finds? Yep.   Userfy to the new user. Collect (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2011 (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.