Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael John Lewis

User:Michael John Lewis
 __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  Speedy keep. Unnecessarily harsh action here. Please try and help new users. John Reaves 00:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty blatant WP:FAKEARTICLE. Exact copy of Michael John Lewis except it's missing the sources. User is here to promote himself and not to build an encyclopedia.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Doesn't look anything like an article, it looks like an editor's bio on that editor's user page. Personally, I think he's revealed much too much priavte information and should consider blanking the page, or having it deleted and then recreate it, but that's my opinion of what I would do if I were the editor -- he's not a minor and should be allowed to decide that kind of thing for himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Otherwise constructive users are allowed to have user page bios, but that is something that is generally only extended to constructive users. It is very clear that this user is here only to write about himself, as evidenced by his contributions thus far, which have consisted only of 1) writing about himself, and 2) vandalism. I also think that, whether he is allowed to keep this page or not, he should not be including the biographical information of his children, who are minors and cannot consent to having their personal information on Wikipedia. The presumption that as the father this user can consent for them is, while legally sound, not something that I am comfortable accepting.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea either, but parental rights include making decisions about the welfare of one's children. We most definitely should not be putting ourselves, and the WMF, in the position of usurping parental rights, that's not appropriate, and certainly not what we're here for.   Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is worth a wider discussion. Even if it's a parental right, it's hard to see what purpose posting the birthdays would serve, and so may come under the "excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia" of WP:USERBIO. Having age of children would be fine (though there seems to be no userbox, at least, associated with it) but full date of birth seems to be going too far. StAnselm (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:UPYES, and not contravening WP:USERBIO. The vandalism is completely unacceptable, and the user in question is in danger of being blocked. However, he might still turn out to be a productive editor. Many editors have user pages that are made to look like articles (even with infoboxes) and that is acceptable. Not sure about the children's information - I wonder, has this come up before on Wikipedia? Does anyone else have their children's birthdays on their user pages? StAnselm (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that birth-dates of children are "inappropriate ... personal information unrelated to Wikipedia" and thus do contravene WP:USERBIO. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the appropriate forum would be, but I posted it at Wikipedia talk:User pages. StAnselm (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, as entirely self-promotional. Nsk92 (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This user page just has a short bio of a few sentences. Considering that some editors have pages and pages about themselves, their interests, their vast amounts of contributions and dozens of infoboxes, a few sentences introducing oneself doesn't seem excessive. Liz  Read! Talk! 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - for pity's sake, there's almost as much private information/"self promotion" on my userpage as there is on this one. If this user gets blocked indefinitely, then fine, remove the page then; until then, WP:AGF and give them a chance to be productive. Deleting this page straight off the bat is likely to push them further away from that goal. I would definitely suggest that the birthdates of his children were to be removed, however. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Close. WP:BITE applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A closure would be inappropriate as two other people have !voted delete.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 11:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, and I very much doubt Mr. Lewis here will edit constructively. He vandalized my userpage and left a message on my talk about how awesome his daughters are or something.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 12:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fighting with newcomers doesn't make anyone look good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The page has been updated. The children's birth dates have been removed. Now it is worthy of a keep. Michael John Lewis (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Apart from the possible problem with the children's' info (which StAnselm is getting advice about), I see not problem with this user page. All he says is what he's doing, he's not claiming to write wonderful bestselling world-shattering books, now is he? As for his angry postings, he would not be the first person to come to WP with false expectations, getting upset, but the calm down and develop into a valuable contributor. Of course, the over-reactions to his edits, like this MfD, are making such an outcome quite unlikely... --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Michael, I know you have good intentions, but adding more fluff to the page isn't going to help you here.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fluff? Taylor, me thinks you need to look up the word "sarcasm".. --Randykitty (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The page's content has changed, and for the worse. Now the page serves mostly as advertising for Michael John Lewis. I urge users who argue on the viewpoint that the article is not promotional (such as User:Lukeno94 and User:Randykitty) to change their stands on this article. Darylgolden ( talk ) 23:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it promotional? It isn't promotional. These are facts. Just because a person receives praise doesn't mean we shouldn't include it. Michael John Lewis (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Daryl, it's not an article. Nor is it pretending to be. Is it promotional? Yes, it is. But it's not really that much worse than my own userpage, or even Jimbo's userpage. There's perhaps two lines of fluff, and that's it. It's hardly fraudulent or anything like that. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * while you were typing this, Mr. Lewis turned the page into an attack one, where he attacked Wikipedia.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Daryl and Taylor, you're both biting a newbie, who, admittedly, is not making things easier by goading you. This is a storm in a teacup. Let it go. --Randykitty (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is precisely what I feared; you've driven away an editor who had a shaky start, but was certainly not unrescuable, Taylor and Daryl. Well done you. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well aren't you smart. I never wanted to edit here. I felt I deserved a page so I made one. But then Taylor Trescott comes barging in and slaps notices everywhere, and there's Darylgolden screaming that I must be blocked. If these are the kind of people you like on your website, I wouldn't have lasted seconds here before requiring to stick my head in the furnace. Michael John Lewis (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2013 (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.