Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gavinsh78/Shedrick Gavin




 * 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 something lame from CBW 09:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Gavinsh78/Shedrick Gavin
Delete This is nothing but a self-promotional pseudo-article. The page was created on 2 June 2009, and there is no evidence of any intention of ever moving it to mainspace; indefinitely keeping a pseudo-article in user space is not consistent with User page. The user has made no edits anywhere else, and is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. At User talk:Gavinsh78/Shedrick Gavin the user acknowledges that the purpose of the page is self-promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, if kept - tag with noindex should remain. –xenotalk 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Short autobiographical information is an allowed use in userspace. Notability is specifically not a requirement in userspace, else almost every bit of self biography would be deletable.  Lots worse stuff to get deleted before this is to be considered substantial. The current content does not, on its face, appear to promote anything of any commercial interest at all, and is pretty tame, indeed. Collect (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also would've voted keep if this user had contributed to Wikipedia. –xenotalk 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- I agree with all the comments, is only a contributor entitled to user space? It's pretty harmless but as we are here it may as well go. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to answer your question, yes! User space should be related to encyclopedia activities in some way.  I can't imagine many scenarios where a non-contributor would have a userpage that met those requirements.  Maybe a very short one that said what they intended to work on some day. Gigs (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It was earlier incorrectly tagged as being "not notable" under CSD .  Deletion under MfD is the "positive" outcome - the default is to retain, to be sure.   On the other hand, if we delete everything for which a positive reason to keep is not found, then we have totally altered the foundation of the MfD process.  For that, seek to modify WP policy .  Also note: It is already Noindexed. Collect (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a policy-based reason to delete this page, you need look no farther than WP:NOTWEBHOST. As the edits to this page are the users' only edits, he is using WP merely as a webhost. As I said, if he were a contributor, I would be voting keep. –xenotalk 14:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I shall try to answer Collect's reasons for arguing for "keep". Firstly, "Short autobiographical information is an allowed use in userspace". Yes, but if that is the user's only use of Wikipedia then it is a different matter: this amounts to using Wikipedia as a free web host. WP:NOTWEBSPACE says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia". It is true that we allow a good deal of leeway in this to people who make constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, but that does not mean that this principle is completely ignored. For someone who makes no other contributions at all to post a personal page like this is way beyond the limits of any such leeway. WP:NOTWEBSPACE also goes on to say "If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account". In answer to "Notability is specifically not a requirement in userspace", notability is not an issue: nobody is suggesting it should be deleted on notability grounds. (The tagging for A7 in June 2009 was a mistake, and I removed the speedy deletion tag 3 minutes after it was added, but in any case that is irrelevant to the present discussion, where nobody is using non-notability as an argument.) Finally, in answer to "The current content does not, on its face, appear to promote anything of any commercial interest at all", nobody said that it was commercial promotion, only that it was promotion. WP:PROMOTION covers all kinds of promotion, not just commercial. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly this material is both short and non-commercial. It is not a resume in the sense of seeking any employment, and furnishes no contact information.  It is, to be sure, more of an indication as to the background and interests of an editor, which is one of the primary stated uses of userpages.  As to why the person is not active - perhaps the earlier attempt at Speedy may have been noted?  During the five minutes, you sure got his attention! The person is not "dear departed" unless 3 months counts as such, and many active editors have been in precisely the same situation.   And really -- how "promotional" is a page which gives absolutely no contact information, no information about commercial interests, no claims as to having special skills or the like?   In short - this is not really a case where deletion is warranted. Collect (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, much of that makes sense, and I might well agree if it were not for the fact that the author has been on Wikipedia for nine months and has done nothing else at all apart from writing this piece. Whether or not it is promotional it falls under WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:NOT. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm fine with autobiographical material if the editor is otherwise contributing in a non-trivial way. The editor concedes the goal is self-promotion - given no other contributions to WP, it should go. If kept, then noindexed.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional non-article. Gigs (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too promotional for a non-serious contributor.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 19 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.