Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gosugatena (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. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 07:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gosugatena
Almost exact copy of an article deleted after an Afd. The user space was similarly used as a copy of a deleted article after a previous Afd Mosmof (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I dont see any reason to delete -- at worst just blank the page. Also, since he is the article subject, I'm not sure that putting an autobio on your own user page is necessarily bad. Most people do it to some degree (i.e. give some info about themselves). Of course, this is to a much greater degree than usual in terms of quantity of detail, and it might be problematic that it is done in the style of an article. But still, I'm not convinced it does any great harm just left as is. --SJK (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per a very obvious WP:G4 violation. Warrah (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fake article in user space. Gigs (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This page was discussed at MFD before, along with a copy under another user name, at Miscellany for deletion/Steve Gatena article recreation. The close of that discussion was to give the user two weeks to convert the article into a regular, non-promotional user page. The other copy was left in its old state and deleted after two weeks. This copy was blanked, so it didn't get deleted. But surprise, it was unblanked a few weeks later. There is no indication that anything is going on with this page other than an effort to get around the AFD so that the subject can continue to self-promote on Wikipedia. --RL0919 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit, cut back to a fraction of the current content. The user is a contributor, and deserves some leeway.  Refer him to Alternative outlets regarding the bulk of the material.  It is too promotional for here, goes well beyond what we need to know to understand the editor.  Block user if he reposts blatant promotion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggested edit to cut back is here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as editted. Collect (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." (mine emphasized) 's paring down of the page does make it a valid userpage, but I am motivated to support deletion by 's comment that this copy was blanked to evade deletion and then unblanked a short while later. Absent evidence that this won't occur again, I cannot support retaining the revision history of this page. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 6 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.