Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FrankPaulGambino (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 discussion was delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FrankPaulGambino
MfDs for this userpage:  It's useless, and irrelevant, hoaxy information. It has no use under WP:USER, and nor is it an appropriate article. Previous userpage was also XfDd. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as borderline innapropriate-article-made-in-userspace-to-avoid-deletion sort of thing. You get the gist of what I mean. ALI nom nom 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --  M e a g h a n ) ≈ 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not appear on its face to violate BLP (material is simple opinion in general) and userspace is not mainspace. No link to any prior XfD is given, hence has to be ignored. And there is absolutely no requirement that userspace be an "appropriate article" for WP - it does not appear, in fact, to be a mainspace article.  I grant that the myspace and twitter mentions can be removed.  Checking -- if hoax, it is more utile to remove the mentions of this person (who may well be quite eccentric) from other articles on WP first.  Collect (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From the page in question: "Frank Paul Gambino was proclaimed to be God by John J. Gotti, John said “if you are not God there is no God.” Paul has the ability to draw blue prints into the future, he is the Grand Architect of the Gambino Family, whose name is taboo due to National Security reasons." It's a hoax. And while these pages are not addressed in policy, you can't say it's appropriate. ALI nom nom 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly saying you can't go to the URL bar and remove the bracketed "2nd nomination"? Is that so much effort that the alternative is to throw the previous MfD aside? And my point about its status as an article was because he has repeatedly posted this text in the mainspace. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A "speedy deletion as a Copyvio" when it is clearly not a copyvio (I checked all sorts of phrases to see if it was a copyvio, by the way, and found it not to be a copyvio) has not all that much weight for me .  And MfD has nothing to do with mainspace criteria.  The userspace page was not given any real consideration before deletion.  Collect (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it does; if a userpage is being used as a drafting space for an article, that is acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And "sufficient unto the day" ... there is no requirement than userspace only be used for drafting articles. The point remains that the speedy deletion as copyvio was quite improper.   Collect (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point remains that the statement was made to dissuade any comments that it was being used to draft an article (and to point out its previous deletions in the mainspace), this is not a debate of the propriety of the previous MfD, and the userpage guidelines prohibit "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)" Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The creator is now indefinitely-blocked, so there is no reason to keep this page. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cunard, user indefblocked, no relevant content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While the editor has attempted some edits to main space, I didn' see any that survived, so doesn't really qualify as a contributing editor. The page is quite odd, which shouldn't be a reason for deletion, but I think this goes over the border of what is acceptable. -- SPhilbrick  T  16:26, 17 April 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.