Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dperks




 * 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. @harej 00:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dperks
Soapboxing --Cassandra 73 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to be a quote from an account which has been placed on the web on 10 Dec. 2009 (cite is on WP blacklist).  As it is a quote, it is not "soapboxing" as reasonably defined, and, in fact, indicates that an RS might exist for use in an article. Collect (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the user's own testimony - this is one of his contributions (note the user name, and the name of the witness). This user page was created on 24 November, so the user has probably posted the same material elsewhere since then. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The other site did not appear to have been posted by him. I was unaware that being cited by another person made one's own words deletable?  Collect (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not making it clear, I was saying that this is a personal statement from the user, not a quote from the source you found (you mention the other source was dated 10 December, so it was posted on the user page before it appeared on the other source). Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - inappropriate use of a userpage to circumvent WP:NOT. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This is a tough call. On the one hand, this does not seem to be soapboxing in the sense of WP:SOAP, which describes editors who soapbox as "passionately advocat[ing] their pet point of view." This pertains to userspace per WP:UP, which states, "'Wikipedia is not a soapbox' is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate." While using articles as soapboxes for advocating his point of view would be a definite strike against Dperks, that is not the question here. Rather, the question is whether this userpage "passionately advocates" for a point of view. Reading it carefully, I don't think it does. Most of the text is an account of the user's personal experience with UFOs; only towards the end is a point of view advocated: "I think the military in the UK and the United States know of these craft but are keeping it under wraps away from the public so as not to alarm people." This single sentence expresses a point of view about UFOs but does not "passionately advocate" for it. It would be blatantly inappropriate in an article, but this is a userpage, and wider latitude is granted for userpages. Because this user appears to have an interest in editing articles pertaining to UFOs and the like, I don't think a solid case for deletion can be made on the basis of WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:MYSPACE either. Sorry for the lengthy vote, but my reasoning here is complex. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not reach a threshold of SOAP high enough to worry about.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2009 (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.