Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cs32en/Content/Personal/911

 __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! 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Cs32en/Content/Personal/911


Inappropriate personal essay, even for user space. wp is not a blog.  DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The nominator appears to have become interested in this page after participating in an AfD that I have started. I think it is rather pointless to nominate a page in userspace that has (I just checked ) fewer than 10 pageviews in a month. I assume that most, if not all of these pageviews are from editors that interact with me, not from people who read Wikipedia articles and may for some reason think that the content would be endorsed by anyone other than myself. Cs32en   Talk to me  03:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:UP, this page is not suitable since its content is incompatible with any possible use in an article, and does not help the encyclopedia with some views relevant for Wikipedia or its processes. Userspace should not be regarded as free webhosting. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:UP...great latitude is generally given for userpace...but...Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--MONGO 04:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The page is in conformance with WP:UP. It is very mild and reasonable in its presentation, and it serves an acceptable function in allowing an editor to share their experiences, observations, interests and values with others who may be interested, without leaning into advocacy or soapboxing.  There's nothing wrong with allowing editors to use a small amount of space in this manner so that they can get to know each other better.  Wildbear (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question to DGG: Is there a specific aspect of WP:UPNO that would be breached by the userpage? Cs32en   Talk to me  05:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * At first glance, this looks like a COI declaration crossing into SOAPBOX space. The COI declaration is good, and to be encouraged.  Where it goes to far is where justification for the COI is detailed.  Suggest that the author take his opportunity to cut it back to a straight COI declaration.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just an opinion. I am not affiliated to any group which advocates views on how the 9/11 attacks happened, nor am I involved in any business or organization related to 9/11. I merely have an opinion on this matter, not an interest. Cs32en   Talk to me  06:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Userspace is not for opinions that are not even of interest to you. Perhaps you meant something else.  I suggest that edit the page to describe your views and restrain from telling us why you hold these views.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I focused on why I hold those views because the text tells something about me. I thought it was clear that by writing that I don't have "an interest", I do not mean that I would not be interested in the issue. I do not have an interest as defined by WP:COI. Cs32en   Talk to me


 * Two questions: (1) Did you have any intent to persuade others that you views are reasonable? (2) Do you think that a reasonable person could read the text as an attempt to persuade? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was annoyed by people who were supposing that I would believe in some of the outlandish theories about 9/11. If editors who read the text concluded that my arguments are not wholly unreasonable, then I would hope that this would lead to a better basis for discussing controversial topics. I don't actually know whether that is the case, as those editors who regularly engage in attacks on people who disagree with the mainstream view of 9/11 - in most cases with complete impunity, although these attacks do not help to improve the articles in any way - have not really changed their habits.  Cs32en   Talk to me  15:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - None of this seems particularly over-the-line to me; as Wildbear said, it seems to be reasonable in its presentation. A user writing their opinion on something is not necessarily soapboxing; the user could just be wanting to share their views.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep/Modify Content - Per WP:UPNOT, "But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." If this userpage is this upsetting to people then modify the page and delete the September 11 info. Otherwise just keep it, I see no grounds for outright deletion here. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No user has ever indicated to me that he or she would be personally upset by the page. Cs32en   Talk to me  20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTBLOG is a policy--one of our core content policies, in fact. WP:UPNO, the guideline covering user space in more detail, repeats the same sentiment, explicitly telling us no blogs, "no extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia", and no "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project". I don't understand how this page benefits the project, and I don't see how if falls within the narrow restrictions allowing some personal info in userspace. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Our core policies are WP:NPOV, WP:V & WP:NOR --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thus why I used the phrase "core content policy". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "content" was implied so unambiguosly that it was unnecessary, I thought. Check the title of the link.  WPs: NPOV, V & NOR are usually considered to cover content.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete the commentary - violation of WP:SOAP. This kind of content doesn't belong in userspace (or anywhere else in Wikipedia for that matter). Robofish (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per MONGO, per Qwyrxian and per Robofish. Broccolo (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete using userspace for extensive discussion of issues not related to Wikipedia is not allowed, nor is using Wikipedia to promote anything. A brief statement of a user's views regarding 9/11 would probably be OK, but this goes further than that - not only is it not brief but it includes arguments in favour of those views. Hut 8.5 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As I see no actual violation of any WP policies or guidelines for userspace essays. The essay shows the person opinions which are of use to other editors in collaborative editing, and, as such, are not only proper but recommended for use of userspace. Collect (talk) 18:31, 6 August 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.