Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jbirdman


 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jbirdman
A personal essay on the justice system is'nt really appropriate. Ironholds 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NOT. I agree with the nom: Wikipedia is not the place to air your personal opinions. Redfarmer (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blank the page and advise that wikipedia pages are for wikipedia purposes. Scope is allowed for introducing yourself, but soapboxing is not allowed.  Deletion here is an overreaction.  If he continues, the solution is blocking, not deletion of his contribution history, which is counterproductive to welcoming him and steering him in the right direction.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the aforementioned policy, and also WP:NOT. Inappropriate pages are deleted, a user can ask for the content of a deleted page. Blanking doesn't remove the content, a user can revert to this revision, etc. It's preferable to delete, letting the situation worsen and ultimately ending up with having to block the user would mean more drama, more time waisted, etc. And that would be counterproductive. Cena rium  (talk)  18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the unique contribution of the user together with posting this essay at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, and a month ago. I don't think that it's too soon. If the user comes back editing, then he'll take a clean start. Cena rium  (talk)  16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blank the page -- Ned Scott 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't blank, this soapboxing is the sort of potentially libellous commentary that would be deleted in a second if it was in article space per WP:BLP, it's not acceptable on a userpage. --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, blank, don’t Delete, this soapboxing is the sort of potentially not quite libellous commentary that would be blanked/reverted, not deleted, in a second if it was in article space per WP:BLP. If this were libellous and subject to WP:BLP, then it would be immediately blanked, and Cenarium’s action would more definitely be wrong.  BLP violations are usually blanked, where, while technically available, they are not considered “published on wikipedia” and are not trawled by search engines.  There is nothing here that calls for deletion or oversight, or at least that’s not an argument being made.  My problem with this nomination is that this is the wrong forum for this problem.  This content should be removed (blanked) on sight.  The user should be warned.  If the user persists with vandalism, he should be blocked.  If he persists on his own pages, he can be banned.  But keep his contributions available in the history so that I can refer to them in the future is they reappear under another username.  Inapporpriate, but not quite libellous, contributions should be reverted, not deleted.  ---SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's preferable to have the content up during the MfD, and we commonly have more offensive material. If it were created in article space, it would be, probably speedy, deleted, and if it were inserted in an existing article, reverted indeed. This is not a form of vandalism, and MfD deals with userpages, this is the only forum for this. Also, for example, in cases like this one, I would not have reverted, but since you think it may be libelous, I self reverted. Cena rium  (talk)  13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, on further reading, I believe this is speedyable per Criteria for speedy deletion - "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." But since there is an MfD in progress, I will refrain from speedy deleting it. --Stormie (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support speedy deletion according to this logic. Blank it if it isn't libellous/serving no purpose but to disparage/etc.  Speedy delete if it is.  But next time don't give the user the ego boost of time and space at MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for propaganda and advertising, nor is a blog, nor is it a place for opinionated essays. The main purpose of the user space is to use as a tool to help you build the encyclopedia, and they also can be used to provide a little personal information if you would like to do that.--SJP (talk) 23:09, 15 June 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.