Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KatieFB/Luidia

 __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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:KatieFB/Luidia
Abandoned userspace draft for an article about Luidia, Inc., with no significant edits since it was created in September 2009. Should be deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE. RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this spammy, abandoned WP:FAKEARTICLE. User has not made any edits outside this topic and has not edited since October 2009. MER-C 07:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Luidia, Inc., as the normal, obvious, non-MFD-requiring remedy of the apparent cut and paste move. It looks like  was not autoconfirmed at the time, and couldn't move the page, even if she did know about page moves.  WP:NOTWEBHOST is not relevant to this page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTWEBHOST is relevant to a page that uses Wikipedia as a webspace provider. I do not see how teaching new editors about Wikipedia's policies is bitey. Cunard (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Teaching is better done by opening a personal conversation. Deleting new user subpages in the user's absense is bitey. because it tells them that they have done something wrong, and judges, and executes, without giving them an opportunity to respond.  Here, the user didn't even do anything wrong.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Opening a personal conversation with a user who has not edited for over a year is not viable. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the editor will never return, what is the point of a community discussion about their userspace that is not achieved by blanking? Also, the lack of communication is a failure to respect and encourage the return of the editor.  I like to think that many inactive users drop by check for correspondence.  Finding friendly messages would be encouraging.  Finding their userspace content deleted would be discouraging.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The userspace draft is redundant to Luidia, Inc. If the user were to come back and use User:KatieFB/Luidia to update the article, many useful changes would be lost. Instead of confusing the new user, the userspace draft should be deleted so that s/he will know to use the existing article to make improvements/updates. Cunard (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how redirecting could confuse the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I do not see why outdated content should not be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose the trend that you are promulgating, that every little problem, such as a copy-paste move, requires community discussion leading to administrator action. It is inefficient and counter to our culture of a community run project, tending to a bureaucratic, administrator run project, where the ordinary editors are subservient.  It is better all-round if editors fix things immediately (do the redirect) and move on.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a community discussion does not make "ordinary editors" "subservient" to administrators. Instead of speedy deleting the page under db-housekeeping, RL0919 had the respect for fellow members of his/her community—even non-admins—to hold a community discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that this page is speediable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but there are some admins who do uncontroversial, out-of-process deletions of abandoned or inappropriate content. RL0919 should be commended, not called bureaucratic, for having the courtesy to initiate a community discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2010 (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.