Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dalina66/Why should we buy a membership in some games

 __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! 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Dalina66/Why should we buy a membership in some games


Not sure what this had to do with building an encyclopedia. WP is not your blog. Quinn &#9617; RAIN 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This has no place here, especially in the userspace of someone who hasn't contributed to the encyclopedia at all.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bitey much? Rich Farmbrough, 09:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Wow... I didn't notice that at all. I suppose the ending bit of my comment doesn't rreally apply. However, there isn't any way this will fly; it really doesn't have anything with Wikipedia. I don't really think it is being BITEy to get rid of it.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:BITE. User is a new account. --Surturz (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BITE. It would be better to wait a few months to see if the new user becomes productive. If not then Mfd might well be appropriate. -- Klein zach  23:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeesze guys, well I guess I'm not AGF here for spotting a page on NPP that has absolutely nothing to do with anything encyclopedia related, and could easily be hosted an numerous free blog pages. Just because I think it's not relevant to the project doesn't mean I'm "biting" anyone.  Keep it if you want, I don't care.  Just don't mark me as a bully, OK? Quinn &#9617; RAIN
 * Not our intention to be rude to you, Quinn, for which impression I apologize, and obviously you are right that this page is unlikely to make the "big time". The user had previously created an article "Why turtles are so slow" and been advised to develop content in user-space.  It seems to me likely that this user is may not yet be ready to write new articles from their own knowledge, but they write clearly and spell well, so there are certainly things they can help with, I would not wish to be discouraging, even at the cost of a few userpace pages (which after all we would be replacing with MfD pages). Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete. I'm not tyring trying to be mean to new users, but I agree with Quinn and Hi878. ...Dynamic&#124;cimanyD... (talk&#124;klat) ☺ 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – I'm sorry, but this would never make it to the mainspace in any way, shape or form. Exclaiming WP:BITE is not going to change any of that, and that is not an exception to keep such drafts. –MuZemike 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. There is no reason to keep this. If the userpage consisted of HAGGER?!?! written 9001 times and had a link to Goatse, would you still be saying "baww, you ish so mean, you huwting da new user wif da bites"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no social comparison between deliberate vandalism and a good faith but inappropriate contribution. This user might not be expected to be writing articles for another few years yet (but I wouldn't rule it out) but may be fixing typos and such anytime, the example you gave is an almost certain sock who can be blocked on sight. Rich Farmbrough, 07:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC).


 * While the content isn't really salvageable, seven minutes between an account's first (and only) edit (which seems to have been in good faith) and XfD is deserving of a serious trouting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Userspace. 7 minute mark before being MfD'd.  Collect (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you all are just being way too freaking cautious. This obviously won't fly; why should "aw but the editor is new" get a pass? Ever? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The point the keeps are making is presumably that biting an editor this hard virtually guarantees that said editor leaves the project disheartened immediately. That's precisely why new editors are given lee-way even when their early contributions have problems which mean we can't use them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The hell they do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete While I sympathize with the arguments of those supporting retention, I note that the user has been made aware that her creations are inappropriate. She created the original research article Why are turtles so slow which was deleted as a "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". She created How do we read japanese books, which was prodded as an "unencyclopedic how to", and which was deleted as a "test page". has explained why these pages are inappropriate, and I hope Dalina66 listens to his words. If she understands Rich Farmbrough's explanation, she will understand why this page does not belong in the encyclopedia. Because this unsalvageable original research page is unfit for mainspace, and because Wikipedia is not a webhost, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 11 September 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.