Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lenoraclaire/LenoraclaireBio


 * 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 Keep Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Lenoraclaire/LenoraclaireBio
Recreation of a previously deleted entry for a nn individual who used wikipedia policy disruptively. Not sure if this is being used a faux wikipedia or as a step in an attempt to recreated the page later -- in any event this clearly violates wiki guidelines for user pages. -- Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of the user page guidelines does this page violate, specifically? Dogtownclown (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Userspace need not be for "notable" people -- this appears to be a c.v. if one assumes it will never be in mainspace, and, as such, is allowable. When userfied, the person doing it stated a belief that it might meet WP standards with another source or so -- hence it really does not make sense to choose deletion becasue the person was "disruptive." Collect (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that "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." --- if that's not so then my bringing this here is misplaced. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It does not seem impossible to me that with a few good references, she might become notable and the article upgraded. If nothing happens in another year, then we can ask the user to remove it. DGG (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete User pages are supposed to be related to one's wikipedia presence, per the wiki entry on user pages. Wildguy42 11:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Text placed in one user's userspace by a second user, without any request. Since the userspace here belongs to the article subject, it is difficult to see 1) why she should be encouraged to write another autobiographical article for Wikipedia, and 2) why she would need this text to write her autobiography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you insist on making it seem as if the subject was the only one who worked on the article? I put in many hours of research myself and I've never met the woman. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Swancookie (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree, I've found several good Lenora Claire references. She is IMHO notable and the article can be upgraded.


 * Strong Keep This page will never show up in a search of Wikipedia so the idea that it is being used as a "faux Wiki page" seems a little alarmist to me. I've been continuing research on the subject and am looking forward to adding more info to this user's page, I'm glad I found it.


 * Additionally: Wikipedia routinely publishes bios on people who aren't famous or notable on a world-wide scale. Being unique or interesting often suffices for inclusion here, or in any other encyclopedia for that matter. This person is not a household name but that doesn't disqualify 99% of the bios here. Why the article couldn't have been left up and allowed to be worked on further is a shame. Dogtownclown (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * KeepFirst to address the noms concern about disruptive behaviour.  Its true the subject was editing her entry against policy and was rude when civilly challenged about it.  However  she stopped when asked to by editor dogtownclown so she responded well to friendly advise. Even some of the nicest show business people can be rude if they  (mistakenly) feel their public image is being attacked, and lots of good editors weren't civil or compliant with policy on their first few edits,  so I hope the early edits from the subject wont be held against her.
 * Secondly the page isn't there for long term storage. Personally I feel the subject is already noteable but as respected editors disagreed I thought it would be good to leave the page in user space until a good new source comes up.  Its in line with policy to have work in progress articles in user space as long as they are not attack pages and have potential to become encyclopaedic.   FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 26 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.