Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago

 __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  Keep as a userfied article draft. I will history merge with the deleted article to preserve the attribution history. The discussion seems to allow that this could either be improved for return to mainspace or turned into a proper first-person user bio, but either way I'm assuming that the usual WP:STALEDRAFT provisions will apply in the future if the page sits unchanged for an extended period. --RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago
This is a hard copy of a recently deleted article (a biography about a Wikpedian). I don't know if it's usually accepted to keep a pseudo-encyclopedic article hosted on Wikipedia's servers, but, in any case, the copy was made in such a way that the article's history was lost, what, if not fixed, constitutes a violation of the text's licensing terms set by its contributors. Damiens .rf 15:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article in userspace is harmless, and given the history here should be left along as a matter of contributor relations if nothing else. While I understand the comment about licensing, given the history and circumstances of this article (including the identity of the primary authors) it is completely fictive to suggest that anyone would really feel his or her intellectual property rights are being violated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not fictive at all. I, for one, do not like how my name was erased from this copy's history. --Damiens .rf 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a webhost. The history is irrelevant if the original article has been deleted. Green Giant (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Green Giant and WP:UPNO. "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website." True, this user has other subpages that have no connection to Wikipedia and belong on a personal website, but that does not justify yet one more page that has no place here. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's truth. We already have a complete autobiography on his user page, a public love letter for his wife on another page, his collection of autographs in some other and a list of aggrandizements in yet another page. This is "extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." as described in UP. --Damiens .rf 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete-- WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- E♴  (talk)  14:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It contains way more details than usual, but I don't think that this page is all that different than the "About Me" sections on most Wikipedians' user pages. My only real concern is that there needs to be a User page template (or something similar) at the top of the page. This will ensure that people who he gives this link to that are unfamiliar with Wikipedia won't think that this is an "official" article. BurtAlert (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "About me" pages are usually written in the first person, while this one is written as an article. As pointed out above, the user already have many pages advertising his persona. This one may be mistaken by a valid article. *: We delete vanity biographies of non-notable people everyday. What if their creators start duplicating this material on user pages? --Damiens .rf 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: there is a long-standing tradition of userfying deleted pages for interested editors. Since the AfD (which I'm upset to have learned about well after the chance for me to chime in passed, probably because it was never listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military‎ for some reason) was closed due to notability issues, not anything about it being inappropriate for any namespace. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply a userspace draft (though it could use being tagged as such). If people think it's a COI for it to exist in the userspace of the biographical subject, then I'd ask for it to be moved to mine (with the appropriate history for attribution); I will endeavor to improve it until it can be returned to mainspace.  bahamut0013  words deeds 23:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Although folks are obviously welcome to improve the page as they see fit, there's no need for the ultimate goal here to be moving the page back to mainspace. In general, when someone retains a copy of a recently deleted article in their userspace, that copy is improper and should be deleted. But when the page in question is, in fact, a biography of the editor in question, that is 100% permissible in my opinion, given the fact that the contributor in question is a longstanding productive contributor to the project. Editors matter. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The contributor already have a biography written in first person on his user page. Keeping a pseudo-encyclopedic article sets a bad precedent. I constantly work on removing advertisement and self-promotion from Wikipedia and I see the "opportunities" this precedent will open. That he is a "productive contributor" should give him any privileges. Please note WP:UP. --Damiens .rf 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course, don't forget that page, as it stands, is a copyvio, for the contribution history have been erased. --Damiens .rf 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really see WP:UP as relevant here. This appears to be a simple biography, not self-promotional in the sense of Wikipedia policy (which frowns upon commercial self-promotion, not somewhat fluffy user-biographies in userspace, in my opinion). By the way, why did this last as long as it did in mainspace if it is so promotional by your estimation? It seems the article was deleted largely on notability grounds, not for being promotional. And I don't see this opening any "opportunities"; I doubt that an editor including strictly autobiographical material in his userspace will lead to an uptick in spam. To address your second bullet-point, surely that's a reason for a history merge with Tony Santiago, not deletion? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question about promotion: The oldest category in Category:Articles with a promotional tone is Category:Articles with a promotional tone from August 2007. Although I would not characterize User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago as spam, sections such as User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago are promotional. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to User:Bahamut0013/Tony Santiago per 's request and pledge that he will "improve it up to standards". Because Bahamut0013 is more equipped than the subject at crafting a neutral biography, placing the draft in Bahamut0013's userspace is reasonable. Had he not pledged to work on the userspace draft, my position would be "delete" per WP:UP and WP:UP, which 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." notes that Editors matter. I agree. User:Marine 69-71, as  notes above, has: "a complete autobiography on his user page, a public love letter for his wife on another page, his collection of autographs in some other and a list of aggrandizements in yet another page. This is 'extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.' as described in UP." These have been left untouched despite the fact that they violate WP:USERBIO. Had a new user created such content in his userspace, the content would be deleted. I oppose the notion of Wikipedia's having vested contributors. I agree that established editors are given more leeway in userspace than newer editors. However, this content has crossed the line into excessive promotion and use of Wikipedia as a webhost. Therefore, a move of this userspace draft to the userspace of someone who will work on it is more beneficial to Wikipedia than leaving it as is. I note that the page can, per the standards, be subject to deletion again if it is not been worked on for six months. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 5 April 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.