Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Harryrgwatts

 __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: Keep. — xaosflux  Talk 03:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Harryrgwatts


I ran across this while working WP:NPP. To my mind, this page meets WP:U5 because the editor made only three edits, two of which were to this user page, and the userpage seems only to promote the editor in question. We usually give latitude to Wikipedians with their user pages but for someone that is not here to contribute, I find no reason for such allowance. The page was speedied only to be un-deleted on the request of other admins. Since I have no qualms about upsetting the wiki-politics, I'm asking for consensus to delete. Wikipedia has no interests in allowing drive-by editors to promote themselves in user space. The content does not match the goals of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This page in no way meets the conditions of U5 nor those of WP:NOTWEBHOST in general. See the relatively brief DRV discussion: Deletion review/Log/2017 July 21. This page contains the user's name, birthdate, the subjects he is studying, and a rather vague indication that he is somehow associated with (or perhaps merely a fan of) a well known band. I fail to see that this is promotional in any way of the uder, or indeed of anyoen or anything. A mere mention that this person exists is not very promotional. WP:UPYES specifically mentions that  is acceptable. I don't see how anything could be more limited. I have more extensive autobiographical content on my own user page, and did back as far as this version The Userpage policy also says:  with the implication that such information is acceptable, if perhaps unwise for those who wish to protect their privacy. WP:UPNOT lists a number of things not appropriate for inclusion on a user page. The only one of these suggested as applying here is  As I said above, i don't see that this page is in any significant degree promotional of the user, or of anything. If the real objection is that the user has made only three edits, 2 to this page and one vandalistic/test edit in article space, we do not yet have a policy that users not yet blocked or blockable, are denied even a basic user page.  If that is to be the policy in future, it needs a wider consensus. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * pinging all those who commented in the DRV discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and trout nominator for WP:BITE violation. How on earth are you assessing the editor as drive-by? Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It describes the editor. That's what user pages are for.  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fits U5. Self promoting. Only other edit is subtle deliberate vandalism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How exactly is this self promoting? By mentioning this person's mere existance? his course of study? His fondness for a particular band? None of that is promotional in any meaningful sense. Unless the rule is to be that someone with no constructive contributions may not have any userpage at all. That would be a major policy change. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is claiming association with the success of Little_Mix. That would be a commercial success. How do you read "fondness"? I read him as promoting himself in two userpages edits, his only other edit it deliberate vandalism with an edit summary attempting to conceal the vandalism. That vandalism edit, in the absence of any project contribution, I weigh very highly. No AGF, a self promoting drive-by vandal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep limited autobiographical content is permitted on userpages per WP:UPYES and is very common on userpages of all types of editors. This userpage briefly describes who the user is, where he's from, what he's studying and what some of his interests are, and I don't see it as at all promotional. The user's edit count or contribution history isn't relevant to whether we allow them to have a userpage like this.  Hut 8.5  09:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course the contribution history is relevant, userspace leeway has always been in proportion to the user's constructive contributions. Except for userspace, this user is a vandalism-only account.  When he makes some serious contribution, then let him have his userpage back.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, leeway in userspace is in proportion to a user's constructive contributions, but this is not a case of leeway - this type of userpage is acceptable as long as you aren't indefinitely blocked. I'm not sure how you think we are going to persuade people to make constructive contributions here if this is the kind of treatment they get.  Hut 8.5  12:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that WP:UP says: (Emphasis in the original.) This page seems to fit that section quite exactly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I posit that it consists "solely of spam or other speedy deletable material" exactly. That's why I nominated it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's not a NOTWEBHOST violation and is not promotional. — MRD 20  14  19:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, nothing whatsoever wrong with this. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep nothing remotely promotional about this. Smartyllama (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is utterly inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a fair estimation. Other editors have said that they don't find the page promotional or they don't think it fits U5 criteria, which is fine. I made my case and for you to claim my nomination is inappropriate either infers that you didn't bother looking at the page in question or that you have such contempt for me that you couldn't be bothered to provide an actual rationale. Either way, you're not helping AfD if you're just letting meaningless words spill out with no concern for the task at hand. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I most certainly looked at the user page, and the editor's vandalism edit, and the DRV. Also the exact wording of WP:U5 and the sections of the policy and guideline linked to. I do not consider my feelings are those of contempt but I do not hold this nomination in high regard. It is damaging and it would have been far better if this matter had not been embarked upon. I am very disappointed that you have not realised this has been inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, nothing violating and strong support for trouting nominator. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting this one would be a bad idea. I've seen much worse on ten-year-old pages. I've seen pages that looked like a resume. Not me, I don't want anyone to know me IRL, but that's just me. Okay, it's been a month since his last edit. Again, being nosy, I've found users that go years between edits. There is nothing here that merits deletion. In fact, when this is over, we should remove all trace of it happening. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 05:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , we don't usually erase deletion discussions, because they serve as, well not precedents, exactly, let us say as examples that can be referred to in future deletion discussion, and sometimes in policy discussions, as I rather expect this discussion will be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Indeed. A case of so many being wrong together. Groupthink. The page is a boast by an non-contributor vandal. Appropriate for U5, appropriate nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Current policy does not say that basic user pages are limited to editors who have made some number of productive contributions. Neither U5 nor NOTWEBHOST says that or anything like it. The many people favoring keep here seem to me to be correctly applying the current policy. There is no groupthink there, as i see it. Do you want to change that policy, ? If so, I think an RfC would be a better way than individual MfD discussions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The userpage is a mild CV, self promotion. It is not a statement of intending editing interest. Leeway in userspace always is in proportion to the user's contributions. Except for the userpage, the single edit is vandalism with a deceptive edit summary. Intentional. The userpage question is pretty mild, but I am shocked by the "strong keep"s and the criticism of the nomination. There is no policy issue. This is a mild but textbook CSD#U5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is, in my view, an absolutely textbook case of the misuse of U5. I grant that the nominator's intentions were good, but it seems to me that he and you both badly misunderstand the relevant policy, and that you are shocked by the large number of keeps (and don't forget the quick overturn at the DRV before this) suggests to me that you are out of sync with the community on this issue. You write of "leeway" and say it increases with the user's (constructive) contributions. This is true, but remember that "leeway" in this idiom refers to a margin for going beyond the rules, for tolerance of what is not really quite acceptable. This page doesn't need any leeway because it is squarely within the rules, so it is fine even for an editor with no positive contributions at all. You write of the page as "mild CV, self promotion" But it isn't promotional at all, unless you consider that merely mentioning this person's very existance is promotional. In what way is this promoting the user? I see none. WP:UPYES says: . That is exactly what is here, and very limited it is too. Other comments above seem to agree with this view. This has gotten far more comment than most MfDs, more indeed than the average AfD these days, and there seems to me a fairly clear consensus. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Excepting SmokeyJoe's brave defense of my nomination, I'm reminded of what the Man in Black said: "I'm very disappointed... in all of you." The consensus seems to be that we can have editors register an account, vandalize and promote themselves on their user page and that's ok. User pages (I thought) were for Wikipedians and we gave leeway for how you express who you are as an editor. Apparently the aggregate has to be offended with the content in order to delete a user page. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad. I wasn't clear enough. I really meant that the user's pages should be sanitized. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (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.