Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LaurenSpierer

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:LaurenSpierer


Userpage of a blocked user. Someone created a page for Lauren Spierer, an American university student who disappeared some months ago (see http://www.findlauren.com if you're interested in the story), but it was speedy deleted because it was a BLP1E about a thoroughly nonnotable person and written purely to advertise the search efforts. Apparently the creator decided to register and try posting in userspace, and it largely went undiscovered until Noformation noticed modifications a few minutes ago. With all this in mind: it needs to be deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE; this is not an appropriate use of a userpage, and we have the deleted article to prove that it's not a valid article topic. No point in asking the user to remove it, since the user was blocked for petty vandalism (purely unrelated to the Spierer issue) a few days later. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, should we run a CU on the IP that edited the user page to see if there's a link to the blocked user or is that too much fishing? N o f o rmation  Talk  23:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete While an unfortunate case (like thousands of other similar cases), this is clearly an inappropriate use of userspace and per WP:NOTWEBHOST Wikipedia should not be used to host appeals. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Falls outside the scope of Wikipedia.  Chzz  ► 04:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, I unfortunately concur. -- Luk  talk 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I must agree with the above. WP is just not set up to host these kinds of things. The only dividing line that makes any sense is to say that these kinds of appeals are inappropriate. Regretting Delete. VanIsaacWScontribs 16:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. To maintain the focus of the project, we have to stick with our inclusion criteria, no matter how worthy the cause.  Refer to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the apparent consensus that this is a misuse of Wikipedia and, if the page creater were in good standing, would find deleting this page at this time difficult to justify. (Call this a WP:IAR situation if you wish.) I find deletion to be a reasonable outcome here primarily because the user who created the page is blocked and therefore unable to maintain it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2011 (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.