Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Katielaurenmalone




 * 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 The page has been suppressed with deletion, based on the ArbCom motion on self-disclosure by minors and COPA. Keegan (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Katielaurenmalone
Deletion per WP:NOT as a personal web page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could probably be speedied, the user's only contribs were vandalism. If not deleted it at least needs to be oversighted. Equazcion   (talk)  03:08, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, depending on the outcome of this MfD, I will request suppression. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think any of the criteria for speedy deletion apply here. However, I do think this is an inappropriate use of a Wikipedia userpage under the WP:UP guideline. Specifically, this page may violate #5 ("personal information of other persons without their consent") and definitely violates #8 ("other non-encyclopedia related material"). Oversight may be appropriate if this page manages to escape deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank unrelated messages. Speedy deletion of a userpage is not justifiable by a few test edits.  The information on the userpage does not look like a serious privacy concern; worrying about it in the absence of a complaint from an involved person is not necessary.  Deletion is not necessary.  I have welcomed the newcomer, and hope that she my find interesting ways to contribute productively to the project.  If she subsequently wants to stop contributing under her real name, there are easy options available --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've emailed SmokeyJoe regarding the oversight issue. I'd advise care in making public postings regarding that. Equazcion   (talk)  06:20, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * I don’t think calling for oversight for every revelation of a child’s name, age and location is to be taken seriously. If you disagree, consider birth notices, children’s academic ceremonies and sporting awards, etc.  However, if you really think there is a need for oversight, go to Requests for oversight and do not even post here.  By posting the character string “oversight” at MfD, you flag the private information which can be easily recovered from caches, mirrors and archives.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are more stringent practices regarding protection of minors on Wikipedia than in other forums, and the general existence of a similar type of information elsewhere has never stopped us from oversighting in similar cases. Nevertheless you're right about requesting oversight now rather than mentioning it here and waiting til the MfD closes. Equazcion   (talk)  08:23, 13 Nov 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.