Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hookology


 * 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 Blank. — xaosflux  Talk  03:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Hookology
Being used solely to promote themselves. They also have an article Hookology that is currently at AFD. Might be speedy material as well. P HARMBOY (moo) (plop) 15:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note, Twinkle is broken, particularly when "reliably" doing xfd1's P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Textbook example of what user pages should not be used for - self-promotion and promotion of a neologism. --Bonadea (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fork of a mainspace article. Wronkiew (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your !vote, but in this case, the fork only has one tine.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, I didn't read the original carefully enough. I have no preference one way or the other on this. Sorry. Wronkiew (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, this is more a matter of a user using the user page solely for advertising/spam/agenda. The user page has only this content, and nothing else.  Really it is db-spam, but I always like to get others POV on user pages.   P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 15:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing Wikipedia related about it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blank and wait as per other arguments here Delete No notability. The only sources are for suporting points unrelated to the topic itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blank and Educate - the account was created 4 days ago - can we say bite? Nothing like everything you have worked on is tagged with deletion notices and warnings all over your talk page -- How about a hello and welcome.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont disagree with you on principal, and have spent plenty of time explaining this to others, apologizing to new users, etc. but when a user signs up, creates one article promoting themselves, and duplicates the same material on their user page, they are indicating they don't want to join "the family", and instead see Wikipedia as a convenient place to promote themselves. Like myspace.com, only frumpier.  This is also why I didn't speedy delete request the page, (I still think it clearly qualifies under db-spam) and decided to open it up to other editors, and offer the person yet one more chance to learn what Wikipedia is about.  IMO, this could have been handled stronger, and this is a reasonable compromise.   P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 18:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my comments are not directed at you personally. I generally watch for MfDs on userpage deletions.  I think the "rules" around userpages are subjective, and discression is advised, in some cases.  The old writer's saying, "Write about what you know" is something that guides *many* new editors; and what better topic to know about then themselves.  This guiding rule is the reason for WP:COI and WP:SPAM.  I would take a less absolute view on a user not wanting to join "the family" just because they wrote a spammy article and userpage -- they are new and don't know the ropes.  Taking a big WP:BITE will likely drive the user away and therefore "fix" the problem, but the opportunity cost of driving away a new user really cant be measured.  In article space, *please* drop the hammer on the spammy advert but in user space I think deference and education will work in WP's favour.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete:Reads like a resume. Not Wikipedia related material. War (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait. I agree that the userpage content is inappropriate: a mixture of self-promotion and sopaboxing, with WP:COI on top. However, this is a very new account, just 4 days old. The nomination is premature. It is better to wait about 3-4 weeks, try to educate the user in the meantime and see if they start contributing constructively. Many people come to Wikipedia having no idea what it is about and what is appropriate here (actually, I was in that position myself when I started editing about a year ago) and this user may be one of them. It would be a pity to lose a potentially constructive contributor because of an overly WP:BITEy initial response to this editor's inappropriate actions. I'd say: give them 3-4 weeks and if nothing good happens, MfD the page. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete Weak delete Blank and wait. I raised the issue of nomming this userpage for deletion at the AfD discussion for the Hookology article, and agree with Pharmboy and Bonadea on the spam and example of what userpages are not meant to be. Having said that, I was persuaded by the "newcomer" argument. If the user was not new, I have no doubt I would strongly support a delete, even a speedy. It appears that this user is only interested in promoting Hookology and their religion, seeing how their username and contributions are concerned only with these topics. However, given they are new, I don't suppose there would be any harm in allowing them 3 or 4 weeks to edit other articles. I do, however, think their userpage should be blanked to clear the spam.  [Phlygh  t ]  14:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * as self-promotional material and WP:SOAP. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 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.