Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dave Favis-Mortlock




 * 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  keep for DGG to improve and restore to main space. Allow time for him to do that; anyone unhappy with the result is free to re-nominate for AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dave Favis-Mortlock
Deleted as an article and userfied almost four years ago. Now it is the #3 Google result for his name. See WP:NOTRESUME. PleaseStand (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep-This Doesn't seem like a Resume to me, just a normal user page written like an article.-- SKATER  Speak. 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note, however, that the user had not even made ten (non-deleted) article space edits and was only active 13-25 May 2006: not even two weeks. PleaseStand (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Skater  MMS  2013  16:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. Can you tell me what's wrong with deleting this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep this doesn't seem excessively promotional. By indicating his interests and experience it is relevant to what topics he can contribute to. Seem no more detailed than many userpages are. Actually if there were refs to support all the statements made, might fly as an article. DES (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could add userpage with the no index parameter if you are worried about google promotion. DES (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Editor was "active" for a couple weeks almost four years ago. ontributed to WP in a minor way, and then wrote an unfinished resume. A user page in the form of an article is acceptable, if the emphasis is on WP contributions. This one isn't. (at a minimum, if the consensus is "keep", I agree with DES, it should be noindexed.)-- SPhilbrick  T  20:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think some new users feel that they should write their userpage in the form of the biographies they see on Wikipedia, and it gets mistaken for self-promotion, when really they are just introducing themselves to the community. Tisane (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with them proceeding that way, if they then go on to join the community. After four years, I think we can assume that's not just around the corner.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete mistake or not, it is what it is. WP:FAKEARTICLE Gigs (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. While not exceedingly long, the page is a personal resume entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. The author has not edited WP since 2006 and has made no significant mainspace contributions, so I don't see why cutting him any slack is warranted in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "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." (mine emphasized) This userspace copy has been created by a single-purpose account whose sole purpose is to promote the subject of the article; no other edits outside of this topic have been made from this account. This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a non-notable individual violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace At this point he is notable. (He probably was 4 years ago also, the AfD discussion seems wholly inadequate. Articles for deletion/Dave Favis-Mortlock I'll do the move & add the necessary info for notability under WP:PROF. 30 articles in Scopus, Citation counts 71, 41, 20 , etc. Then only the first 2 lines here will be needed.      DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 20 March 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.