Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Freedom2choose

 __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 no consensus to delete. Freedom2choose is strongly advised, on his recovery (for which best wishes), to revise this in the light of WP:UPNOT: "'Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project.'" failing which it may be re-nominated. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Freedom2choose


Userspace being used to advertise editor's businesses Orange Mike  &#x007C;  Talk  01:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. pseudo-article. WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST--Hu12 (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

These two user pages are not encyclopedia articles. Rather maintenance and practice only. I moved much of the societism stuff to sandbox and will do that with the /societism page if that helps avoid deletion. Please note, I just had a surgery and cannot deal with this for a month or two. Please do not delete. Freedom2choose (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Freedom2choose


 * Keep. Is sufficiently an introduction to a contributing Wikipedian.  It may be excessive and need cutting.  I don't see the classic signs of abuse of Wikipedia for promotion, such as the inclusion of multiple external links.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking again, I see a userpage that holds just short of my line of being too promotional. It contains no external links, and doesn't much encourage the reader to go looking for the user's real world interest.  He's almost at the promotional line, with sole apparent interest at Wikipedia being to do with the interests of the institute he founded.  It's not clear cut.  Articles for deletion/Societism is not a simple case.  Personally, I'd leave the userpage alone, but if some consider it problematic, I recommend that no one do anything more than blank the page in anticipation of the authors recovery from surgery and his return to deal with this in his own good time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (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.