Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarredland


 * 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.

This MfD produced involved debate. After reading the arguments below carefully, and consulting the applicable content guideline, I have closed this debate as "Delete".

Soundvisions1 argued for the page to be kept. My interpretation of his argument was that we had a similar discussion regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman which established consensus that this sort of content was acceptable. Other editors replied by distinguishing the two cases. Johnbuckman had a substantial history of edits to Wikipedia, while Jarredland did not. This is, in fact, the case; and, that distinction is valid.

I also note that Soundvision mentioned he did not find the material acceptable; but, that the editor should be given 1 year to contribute or change his userpage. Consensus appears to be against waiting for 1 year.

While Soundvision's arguments are interesting, I do not find them compelling enough to override the clear "delete" consensus which has arisen from this discussion. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jarredland
Seems like a violation of WP:USER. Only edits were creating this page and by User:Jason E Ramsey (his vice president and another page of interest). Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: While my personal opinion is that this is not acceptable Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman showed a consensus that this sort of user page is allowable. I know one is not supposed to use other discussions as examples but in this case the discussion was about What may I not have on my user page? so it is relevant. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Like the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jason E Ramsey, it is noted that the user's ONLY edits are the creation of this page.  Buckman was a regular user with a detailed user page.  This is just a user page that would be deleted if it was in article space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ricky's reasoning. _ Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Special:Contributions/Johnbuckman shows the only work the Editor did on Wikipedia was to his own articles or articles on his authors/friends showing the editor to be a SPA making COI edits. There is not any indication that if the only work has been done to a userpage in a set time frame than an editor is not allowed to create a user page that talks about their personal achievements. Likewise there is no indication that an editor who either makes COI edits or is a SPA can not create a userpage page about their selves. Please take a closer look at both pages and you will see almost zero difference in the content except that Buckman's userpage has links to WP articles about himself and his companies and was first created on August 24, 2007 as a redirect to his Wikipedia article page and than, on June 13, 2008, created his "1st pass at my bio page" while Lands userpage says it will have links to WP articles (When they are created) and was created on October 12, 2008. So why not voice a "keep" and revisit this in a year to see what changes have been made? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Article space is not user-space. If he created articles, that's fine, even with a COI.  It's simply creating a user page, which nobody else really edits, that's the problem.  As an article, it may have survived, it may not have.  As a user page, we don't want the thing to become littered with spam.  If someone finds it worth keeping, they can always copy parts of it to a new article and see if that survives.  They are separate issues completely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Correct. So your comment about "Buckman was a regular user with a detailed user page" is also a null point as it relates to "regular user". As it relates to a "detailed user page" is and that was what I was saying in response to you - that the reason that user page was "keep" was not based on any of the user history, only based on What may I not have on my user page?, which says that a user page may not contain Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia. The user page in question not "more than a couple of pages" worth of personal information. The other end of this is what a user page can have on it, part of which is information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. As I said - the userpages in question have only existed for a few weeks. If nothing happens in a few years it will be another issue all together. Just to be clear my vote for a keep in this case has nothing to do with notability of the user or their edit history, only that the content is allowable as currently written. Can this content be reformated? Yes, but unless another editor will do it right now there needs to be time allowed for the user to come in and redo it. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete, (self-)promotional spam, user contributed zero encyclopedic edits. --Martin H. (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Page redone: I was bold and reformatted the page to mirror the consensus of what is allowable per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman and per cited guidlines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete' WP is not myspace. It's appropriate for an actual   contributor to have some bio information, but this is just useing wp to post a resume. DGG''' (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Would any of the editor voicing a "delete" here like to open a DRV on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman? I first brought that to MfD for the reason being that it was (and still is) a personal myspace/facebook/bio yet the editors who all voiced "keep" backed up why it wasn't a personal myspace/facebook/bio using the guidelines. It makes sense and the current guidelines back it up that same way it backs up this one as well. I am looking at this as a pure consistency issue based on content only. DGG says "It's appropriate for an actual contributor..." and Ricky81682 says "Buckman was a regular user with a detailed user page" yet I have made if very clear that this is not based on edit history as it was shown not to matter in an MfD and it should be based on exactly what I already stated - content. However, If the underlying message here is that an editor who is a SPA making COI edits is allowable, thusly can use their user pages as an extension of self promotion and a new user who creates their user page first, and does not make any other edits in three weeks, needs to go than I think we all need to move this to a policy and guideline discussion as it touches and many things that are not made clear in any of them. Please note what I first said: "While my personal opinion is that this is not acceptable..." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe im a bit harsh, but can you please stop comparing this mfd request with some other? --Martin H. (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * reply: Biut this is not just "some other" MfD because the nom is the exact same. In other words I brought "some other" userpage to MfD because it too was a "a violation of WP:USER" and there were valid arguments given as to why it was not a violation. I am referring to an MfD that I brought and also I have already stated twice that my personal opinion of all pages such as this and the "some other" one are that they are a violation, however it becomes a matter of why two near identical user pages are having two different discussions based on their content. One says the edit history, and who the the user is, does not matter while the other say they do. Not one response has fully explained why that is other than implying that a SPA making COI edits is allowable while a new user who created a userpage first and did not make main space edits first, COI or not, is not allowed. I see no policy or guideline that says a new user may not create a user page first and make edits later. I am seriously trying to grasp this so it will be consistent with all the guidelines and policy because right now it does not seem to be. The guideline in question states a user page may not contain Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia. The user page in question is not "more than a couple of pages" worth of personal information and just to be sure I was bold and redid it. If the Editors who voice a "delete" feel it is still a violation that I honestly want to see a DRV brought on "some other" MfD because, content wise, they are exactly the same. On the other hand if someone can point me to policy that says than as long as an editor makes COI main space edits they can create a user page to self promote their projects and their selves than I will "stop comparing this mfd request with some other" Thanks.  Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the user is actually going to make main space edits. His last edit was over a month ago.  I know that you advocate waiting a year or even longer, but I think it's clear that few others are going to wait for someone to become useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment also, from this comment, it's clear why attempts to help "fix" other people's userpages aren't accomplishing much. It's his page and he should be the one to decide whether to clean it up or let it sit.  We shouldn't be going after editing other people's pages for their sakes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 22 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.