Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fam quantum george (2nd nomination)


 * 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 debate was delete. PeterSymonds (talk)  13:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fam quantum george
I closed a previous MfD as 'conditional keep' indicating that the page might be usable if it becomes the page of an active editor but is going to be deleted if it is resurrected for the sole purpose of networking or the like. The latter has IMO been the case and I have therefore actually deleted it already in the past. As it has been recreated and considering that also according to the opinion of a fellow admin the previous closure looks like a keep, I am bringing it here once more. Tikiwont (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a delete to me, but do you have a link to the old discussion? --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The words "previous MfD" link to the previous MfD. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * *troutpalm*...of course it does...Delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The previous close was indeed questionable. It looks like a clear "no consensus".  This user seems to have only contributed for the purpose of self-promotion.  Looking at his favourite page, List of Copts, I see he is not alone.  Claiming to be a "list of prominent Copts", it seems to be attracting a number of entries not meeting WP:BIO.  All that said, it is preferable to be nice to newcomers, to blank excessive stuff with a personable note before deleting.  In this case, the content would be suitable if the user were a serious contributor.  Let's encourage him to contribute seriously.  If he refuses dialogue (as seems to be the case so far) and continues to violate WP:UP and WP:NOT, then he should be blocked, with the only recourse being to request an unblock (ie dialogue).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let me clarify that the user page content was originally a repost from article space and had already been blanked at the user space. With the previous closure, the first and only of that kind that i made, I tried to take account of the possibilities but it conflates somewhat questions of page content and behavior. The invitation to edit has already been extended in the past e.g. with the closure on June 15, but we can go only so far to encourage people to became contributors. Right now and for some months now he isn't. In any case I am open to other suggestions and cannot follow-up myself anyways. ---Tikiwont (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've already invest some effort with this user. Would someone get upset if we concluded that we should blank the page and block the user indefinately or until he makes a reasonable response on his talk page?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (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.