Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jkiberd

 __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:  Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jkiberd


Userpage of a user with no edits outside of the userpage, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is possibly oversightable per email address. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep . Obviously an intending Wikipedian, and there are no time limits. MIT students are qualified to decide whether to release their email addresses, this is not a minor.  Feel free to remove her broken link to a personal webpage, but there is not NOTPROMOTION violation here, and Wikipedia is not about rejecting intending editors.  Write to her if you think she has forgotten.  Don't mention oversight if there is any possibility of oversighting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If user had one edit outside of userspace I would agree with you. A Wikipedian with no edits isn't a Wikipedian. If user decides to edit at any point, we can undelete the page. Typically we oversight emails, phone numbers etc mentioned in this manner in articles. I have not sought an oversight request for this reason since this is a userpage. This user has not edited outside of userspace since 17 January 2006, Just about 11 years ago (in 15 days). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I misread the dates as 2016, almost one year. I would just blank the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Either option is fine but I do not see the point of keeping a blank userpage with personal info in its history. This isn't the purpose of userpages and we should discourage such use. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK to delete "now that we are here", but it could have similarly been blanked, there being no sensitive personal information. No date of birth. Except for her name, everything would be out-of-date.  Many adult users introduce themselves with personally identifying information and contact information, and there is not problem with that.  It is normally only deleted or oversighted on their request.  Anyway, my apologies, I thought this was a second year student who registered in her first year, not someone from over ten years ago.  I see at pt.wikipedia.org that her GSR Students made similar Wikipedia pages, with only one making at least one meaningful mainspace contribution.  Her USP Student did a lot better though, almost two dozen mainspace edits, and the latest less than two years ago.  These "tentative Wikipedians" are potential editors, and how we deal with them can have impact.  Deleting their contribution history can be unwelcoming, and if there is no benefit to deletion, why do it?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. And this account isn't what I would consider a "user". This is someone who has not edited outside of their userpage, ever, in over 10 years. I do not see the benefit of keeping such pages/page history. Something blankable can also be deleted. There isn't a more clear cut example of WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would call this a "user", they have registered and made edits, but would not call them a Wikipedian or a contributor. Slight terminology differences we have.  The benefit is a complete solution to the problem without wasting time and space at MfD, along the lines of policy, WP:ATD.  "There isn't a more clear cut example of WP:NOTWEBHOST"?  Rubbish.  It was the userpage of an intending Wikipedia, her similarly behaving friends did contribute.  Look at User:Nepotolemus/sandbox for a much clearer cut example of NOTWEBHOST.  Or browse WP:CSD#U5 tagged pages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They have made no edits in the main namespace hence as you agree this is not a Wikipedian or contributor. This disqualifies them of being a user as far as I care. For all practical purposes (despite the evident intentions of the registered account) there is no credible reason to keep this page nor any other page like this. My rationale and criteria is simple. If user has 0 survived edits in the main namespace in over a considerable amount of time, they do not get the privilage of a userpage. If you think this is a waste of MfD time perhaps you should avoid your senseless push back on a routine site cleanup. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think we noticed I formally changed to "Delete". Bolding above, altering original bold !vote. I started off mistakenly thinking this was a 2016 registrant. I'm happy for you to define her as not a user, I was just explaining my habits, not important at all.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not notice that. I retain my belief that we should limit userpages to people who make at least one edit in main namespace. We have individuals who never bother and individuals who create an article that gets deleted (typically for being promotional or non-notable). A userpage exists to help with your on-wiki contribution after all. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:55, 7 January 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.