Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ibrahim Odeh


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 all. ( Radiant ) 09:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ibrahim Odeh and a bunch of others
Wikipedia is not MySpace, Part I'm-losing-track-of-the-numbering. Once again, more userfied vanity articles for "editors" clearly who ain't here for the editin', but for the publicizin'/self-expression, this batch from January this year. And yes, I left messages on their Talk Pages.

To recap, they ARE all similar, as these:
 * a) are user pages that were moved from article space by an admin/editor.
 * b) were originally articles that were originally speedy-delete candidates or speedy-delete eligible.
 * c) have page creators who have few/no edits outside user space.
 * d) have page creators who have not edited (with few exception)s since the initial page creation, nine months ago.
 * e) are, prima facie, not user pages, but attempts to use Wikipedia as a free webhost/promotional vehicle. WP:NOT, stating that Wikipedia is not a free web host is applicable. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * , created November 2005
 * Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
 * Last edit: November 2005


 * , created November 2005
 * Total edits: 12. Edits outside user page: 9, all centered around Peerflix
 * Last edit: July 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 6. Edits outside user page: 1 (image on user page).
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 3. Edits outside user page: 2 (vandalism to this).
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006 - appears to be the same as a deleted article
 * Total edits: 33. Edits outside user page: 31 (25 to Radio Redhill in May: )
 * Last edit: September 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 3. Edits outside user page: 1.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 5. Edits outside user page: 0.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 3. Edits outside user page: 1 (adding self to The Million Dollar Homepage).
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 6. Edits outside user page: 4 (attempts to add self to Malice).
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 7. Edits outside user page: 3 (to Eordea).
 * Last edit: February 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 4. Edits outside user page: 0.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 3. Edits outside user page: 1.
 * Last edit: January 2006


 * , created January 2006
 * Total edits: 3. Edits outside user page: 0.

Delete any without substantive constructive edits to articles, which appears to be all except Language-cspndnt. Derex 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, even User:Language-cspndnt: the diff I link above is between the beginning and ends of the 25 edits. Note that the net change is very small. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Great job going through this mess, by the way. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 08:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. This looks like a job for a bot, tho'.  Would be easy to create suitable criteria and perhaps run once a month to find and clean out cruft like this. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the point? Deletion will not "save space" or anything of the sort, and it's not as if another editor of the same name can "claim" the area afterwards.  If these users return, having blanked the page and given a (possibly templeted) reminder as to the purpose of the encylopedia would be a much lower-impact option, with a better chance of success.  And suggestions that a bot go and perform these pointless deletions is, well, odd. - 152.91.9.144 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it's not my suggestion to have the bot do the deletions, just to find the pages to put up for deletion. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete how can deletion not save space? Danny Lilithborne 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because deleted pages are not "removed" in any real sense, simply hidden from most people's view. That's why I can easily see and restore any deleted page, because it's just a flag that gets set "visible/invisible." - 152.91.9.144 00:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you an administrator? Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The anon user is right that it won't actually save any server space. We keep a record in the database of every edit made.  It's a requirement of GFDL.  Deletion just moves the edits out of the general view and into a space where only administrators can view them.  Reviewing the pages themselves, they each appear to have been initially created in the article-space and then moved to the userspace as a courtesy to the user.  Since these users have not come back to the project after a reasonable period of time, the pages should be deleted in order to prevent future confusion by other new editors and to comply with Wikipedia is not for advertising.  Rossami (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I can easily see and restore any deleted page This comment implies you're an admin, since only admins have that capability. If so, why are you editing anonymously? If not, why are you making this claim? --Calton | Talk 06:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not here to provide free space for people to advertise themselves in any event. Pages which are used by people for the purpose of advertising themselves are eligible for deletion on that basis alone, and not removing them would quickly turn wikipedia into an site cluttered with more ads than any of us can imagine. Badbilltucker 14:07, 10 November 2006 (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.