Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Laura


 * 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 Keep. WP:NOT does not apply to user pages, especially user pages belonging to regular, valued editors like JzG it's also fine to ignore any rules that may apply. --Aude (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JzG/Laura
Yet another memorial on wiki... clearly people need to reread WP:NOT  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Again, tragic as it may be, Wikipedia is not a memorial.  Majorly  (o rly?) 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I really don't feel that moving, personal memorials like this can possibly fall under the spirit of WP:NOT. That policy is really applicable in article space, where someone might create an article Bob the goldfish (2000 - 2002) or something, which would be inapproriate for an encyclopedia. Most of WP:NOT, in fact, relates to Wikipedia itself - the bit that people see - the main space. As I'm suyre we all know, the policies are a lot looser in the user: namespace, and it is my opinion that there is no basis in policy to delete this page, based on my interpretation of the spirit of WP:NOT. Mart inp23 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The gist of WP:USER, unless someone has changed it recently, is that "in murky cases, the community decides." This makes sense to me. Grace notes T  § 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm - there are many examles of stuff which has got through MfD, but which gratly violates WP:USER (or at least, fails to conform). A generous touch is needed in userspace. Mart inp23  21:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain No, WP:NOT does not apply to user space. However, this page doesn't fit under what is allowed under WP:USER.  I would say that considering it an article in user space (also not allowed) is a more accurate description.  However, I don't believe that was the intent, so while I think the argument to delete is a correct application of policy, I choose instead to abstain from advocating deletion. —Doug Bell talk 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Before nominating this on MFD wouldn't it have been better to first ask JzG if he could remove it. He is not even informed of this MFD, although I assume he has the userpage on his watchlist. Garion96 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Martinp23, and agree with Garion96. I find the tone of this nomination offensive. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in conjunction with my keep argument on this discussion. Many policies on WP:NOT do not apply in userspace, such as WP:NOT (userpage doesn't need citation) and WP:NOT (I can put a list of articles I created in my userpage). And I do not believe WP:NOT categorically applies to userspace. Deleting this one is certainly unnecessary. Wooyi 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep NOT doesn't apply to user space, and if it does, IAR&mdash;considering the painful nature of this page, discussing it first with JzG would have been courteous. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Martin. NOT does not apply, and this is absent even a half-assed attempt at giving a reason grounded in policy for the nomination.   Unsurprisingly, I also agree with Brad.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, use common sense, don't be evil. Picaroon 22:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a memorial, it's an explanation. It's not in mainspace, it's a user subpage, and it is there to explain a Wikibreak and some pretty profound events in my life, for the purposes of helping to understand me, the editor and admin, and things I do around the project.  I think the death of my sister last year is relevant to my emotional state and editorial biases.  I had no idea it was coming, and it has changed the way I view a lot of things.  I'd say it's relevant to the process of building an encyclopaedia, even if only on the level of the bonds between editors, sharing our experiences to help us work better together by understanding each other better. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a huge difference between using Wikipedia as a personal website while contributing nothing and being a productive editor/administrator who keeps a subpage in his own userspace related to the death of an important person in his life. When people are contributing usefully to the project, we don't frown if they post a few social messages on the talk pages of their friends concerning matters that have nothing to do with improving the encyclopaedia. It's only when they're doing that and little else that we should see it as a problem. There are editors who have subpages in their userspace with their biographies or their barnstars. I'm surprised this was even nominated. ElinorD (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The most relevant policy is What Wikipedia is not. While this may qualify under "webspace provider", this is one of the rare times that a policy-wonk as myself would be willing to invoke WP:IAR. While I would not make this argument for most people, JzG is one of our better, if not among the best, contributors. If this page is cathartic and soothing enough to his soul that it helps him deal with the loss, and thereby be a better contributor, one can even make the argument that it qualifies in helping collaboration; he is not someone who has, would, or would counsel abuse of the policies regarding user spaces, so in this one instance, I would err on the side of compassion, caring, and humanity, and let JzG be the aribtor of this page's future. -- Avi 23:08, 11 March 2007 (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..