Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gmanblues


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gmanblues
Overly promotional user page. Declined speedy g11. User might have been creating an article, but user has not edited since July and article has been dormant since creation. Can someone please explain why this page hasn't been deleted yet? --  Spec  ial  K  16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Since user page hosts permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- Suntag (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Is promotional, not related to building content.  Could have just as well been blanked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the user probably just forgot about it. The content was once an article, but that article got deleted, and the author (and subject of the article) was very understanding and polite about the whole thing. He writes to one user "I really want to make the cut and be in wiki, but I want it to be REAL and not some social-engineering tactic.". I doubt he'd be upset if the userpage was deleted, and I have no real opinion on that, but I thought I would mention this. It's nice to see that people don't always take it as an insult that their article got deleted, and want to be included in Wikipedia on their own merits. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Blank or delete. I appreciate the user's ambition, but he hasn't made it yet, and from the looks of this, isn't likely to any time soon; so we have no reason to keep this information. I tend to prefer blanking user pages to deleting them outright, though. Terraxos (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or blank And immediately NOINDEX all User:* space related pages to prevent this happening in the future to where it can be detected outside of our site or affect the wider world negatively as easily. There is no reason to include User: pages or sub-pages on Search Engines. This seems to be happening too often now, and it's a waste of our manpower to go hunt down all these problem pages, since we may never catch them all with millions of user accounts. NOINDEX them all, the whole User: name space and subpages, fix the robots.txt filtering to catch any possible combinations of URLs, and bang, problem solved. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:10, 18 September 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.