Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joe9320/Illogicopedia


 * 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Joe9320/Illogicopedia
I asked the author about this page back in April, pointing out that 1.) Illogicopedia has been salted, and 2.) not one, but two of the site's admins even admitted to the site's lack of notability in its AFD. The author of this userpage didn't take me seriously at all when I asked for secondary sources, saying "Remember, I can make the impossible possible. We will wait and see." Given that this doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming an article, and the author's utter lack of seriousness towards such things as notability and reliable sources, I believe that it should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a harmless piece of userspace. Also keep the image too. Notability rule does not apply to user subpage. Potential to become an article does not apply to user subpage. User pages does not have to have secondary sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it! Screw this, I'm saving this page! Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party  |  Contact the Encyclopedian Embassy  09:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Becoming an article is not a requirement in userspace, hence not a reason for deletion. Nor is notability a requirement. Collect (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless they're actively working on addressing the reasons why it was deleted (and with a salted page, that is quite unlikely), users don't get to keep deleted articles in userspace to make a point. Toss it. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates "copies of other pages" user page policy. blurredpeace ☮ 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." blurredpeace ☮ 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing admin, please read that. I think it says more than any of the "keep, it's harmless" !votes do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete user was already warned about this being deleted a month ago (User_talk:Joe9320). Article is clearly not notable, per nom. Users last edit to it was on 27 April 2009. Seeing as the user is a member of its sister site, it could be seen as a violation of WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:USER (see Blurpeace quote).--Otterathome (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete user space is not for long term hosting of deleted articles. Gigs (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep*. User apparently believes that wikipedia should have such an article.  Maybe he's right.  As a contributing wikipedian, he's entitled to host that opinion in his userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content" seems pretty clear to me. Gigs (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. But as this one concerns satire connected to wikipedia, I think it should be allowed to stay, in userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an interesting take. I could see that. Gigs (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well a consensus has been achieved to show the article isn't notable. And user space is for opinions, but not a depository for deleted articles that are no longer being worked on.--Otterathome (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not notable. It's not OK as an archive of a deleted article.  But it would be OK as a statement of the user's opinion related to wikipedia.  We should ask User:Joe9320 what its purpose is.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If Joe wishes to express his opinions regarding illogical aspects of the Wikipedia...of which I agree that there are more than a few...then I believe he is free to express those (while being mindful of WP:NPA and the like) on his main user page, without the need of keeping them in the form of a deleted article. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * *Keep, subject to it being tranformed into a user-essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- How can I make an essay? I rather be on Uncyclopedia than here. I'm not even allowed to work up on an article! This is hypocrisy! Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party  |  Contact the Encyclopedian Embassy  07:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of your Illogicopedia to wikipedia? Is there anything to be learned from it?  What do you have to do with it?  The standard concern here, as I see it, is that your page exists to promote something.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an essay, or anything like an essay. So I don't know why you are bringin that it's an essay. Maybe this has been brought out of confusion due to people not reading the page properly.--Otterathome (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I got one comment for you: Why delete a harmless piece of userspace? Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party  |  Contact the Embassy  09:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about thin ends of wedges. If anyone can keep an archive of any deleted page, then it will become commonplace.  Userspace might then start to host a shadow, inferior encyclopedia, to the detriment of the reputation of the project.  Why do you want to host this page?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOHARM. Oh and it's against about 5 other guidelines/policies mentioned above.--Otterathome (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2009 (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.