Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nurasko/myminicity.com


 * 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 debate was Keep - per discussion; assuming good faith and not biting the newbies require that we leave this copy for now and if the user really needs two copies fine, if not inform the user of db-user. Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC) - I have added userpage and NOINDEX to both this page and the other copy.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Nurasko/myminicity.com
An exact copy of another page in his userspace which is itself a copy of a non-notable page. Hazel77 talk 12:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - This page has been nominated on the grounds that it is an identical copy of a page nominated for deletion, there is a separate deletion request regarding the page content itself.--Hazel77 talk 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Forget all these copies, this is in violation of WP:PROMOTION. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:BITE, as I don't want to scare this user away. I had no idea the past surrounding this page, and one of the longest and greatest explanations I have ever heard.- Marcusmax ( speak ) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - blatant spam. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 22:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, harsh to ask for delete 7 days after something is userfied after a speedy delete. Good faith seems to say you wait a bit longer.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 23:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Userfied or not, this page still does not meet wikipedia criteria and policies. To start off with read WP:UP, it is evident that cr.6 and cr.7 clearly go against this User subpage. WP:PROMOTION is violated as well. This is not something that can be userfied and serves no purpose except pure promotion. Please keep in mind that I had no idea there was a csd on this one in the past. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Fair enough and I trust your faith 100% in your statement, but I think that you are misunderstanding the intent of the guidelines. I have the time, so here is my take. It's long, but space is cheap. To start, the logs clearly show that it was speedy deleted, and this copy in his userspace was a working copy. He is a newer user, his actual user page and talk page appear fine, this is a subpage of an article he is claiming to work on. The nom told him | this was a recreation of a deleted page. This is a misreading of CSD#G4, which doesn't even apply to material deleted under speedy to begin with. There is no policy that I am aware of that says you can't userfy a copy of an article that was speedy deleted. As a matter of fact, most admins will happily do that for you if you ask nicely.

It clearly passes WP:PROMOTION because the content of the article really isn't advertising, it is simply saying what the site IS. All articles about a website would similar. There are no peacock terms, no "this is da k3wLest", only a single grand claim. It doesn't have a single external link which is usually the gold standard in promotion/spam. I completely understand how you might misinterpret this at first glance, but please take a look again objectively. It is just a marginal article about an unremarkable topic.

What about WP:UP#NOT cr6/7? Lets take a look at my take:

6. Advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links)
 * First of all, it has no links. Second, it is perfectly acceptable to have an article under construction in your user space.  Take a look at WP:DRV, it happens every week.  That the article is about a book, business, or whatever (excepting WP:BLP) doesn't matter.  It is common policy to extend this common courtasy, and allow generous time for development.  Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline for completion. This policy covers when someone starts an account and is using their user page solely to promote their personal website/band/etc.  This is not the same thing.  Every article must talk about the subject matter, this one does only that.

7. Extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to your activities as a Wikipedian
 * Again, this amount of text is dwarfed by the other content on his user page and talk page, AND it is a subpage. In  order for this to apply, you would have to conclude that rest of his user page is a ruse to allow this content.  If this was his user page with no other content (we see that all the time) then hell yes, delete it.  This isn't the case.  It is a subpage AND a look at his user page makes it at least appear that this isn't the only thing he is doing here.  Assume good faith.  This real user page is 100% about his activies at wikipedia.

Is it notable? Oh hell no. It isn't even good. It will never be a real article and maybe he just doesn't know it yet. There is no policy that says you can't have a poorly written and unsourced article in your userspace. (As a matter of fact, when an article is deleted for being nonnotable, you can almost always get it userfied, so this is actually encouraged!) User pages should be given reasonable latitude unless it is obvious that it is abuse or spam, and anyone who bothers to look at the rest of his pages can easily see that this isn't the case. I have created worse pages as a start in the past in my own user space. I am a well established editor, if you ran across this in my userspace, would you have nom'ed it? I still have a copy of an article that someone might think is promotional because it is about an event in my own town, so I clearly benefit from it, and it is still in my userspace. Should it nominated for delete? If you would treat me differently than him in either circustance, then how exactly is this a fair application of policy?

Apply some good faith, leave the article there for a few months, then retry. I don't know Hazel, and I don't doubt her faith, but I think we might just be a tad bit overzealous in trying to delete this. At a minimum, it is arguable that is meets policy (to me, it is clear, but I allow for debate). What is clear is that this is not the only content in his user space, he didn't create his account solely to spam the world with this one pitiful article that doesn't even bother to have an external link. Worse, it makes us look like a bunch of bullies, as if we are trying to find SOME policy it will violate just to delete. I don't think anyone in this discussion is but maybe, just maybe, as a group, we are just being a little too anal retentive in this case. I don't care about this page, I care that we don't bulldog users and tell them they can't userfy bad articles while they try to make them good. This *is* biting. D ENNIS B ROWN (T) (C) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You make some good points and perhaps you are right that I am being rather overzealous in deleting his pages. All the points you have made are good arguments against deleting the article. However, if you read me original comment you will see that the reason this was nominated is because it is an exact copy of another page in his userspace. Whether or not the content should be kept is not the matter to be addressed here but rather where the content deserves two identical copies.--Hazel77 talk 12:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See this mfd for discussion as to whether or not the source article deserves to be kept.--Hazel77 talk 12:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are policies that say one can't have a poorly written and unsourced article in user-space--policies regarding WP:BLP and against advertising, to name just two--not to mention the general warning here:


 * 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.

This appears to be a poorly written advert, so I say delete. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I addressed both the BLP issue (which this clearly isn't) and the advertising issue, which this clearly isn't. (see above) As to whether or not he needs two copies, probably not, but this doesn't go against a particular policy.  If this page had been here a year, then I would say yes, we aren't here to archive old copies.  Actually, if this had been unedited for 90 days, I wouldn't have butted in.  That would have shown a very good faith amount of time.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that this actually falls under the User Page guidelines of not duplicating deleted pages (This second copy was created after the first page was nominated for deletion). In my opinion, it would be fair if we deleted this copy and allowed him to work on the other copy in his user space.--Hazel77 talk 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I recognise that, though it was done in good faith, I am guilty of being overzealous in nominating both these pages for deletion and I will be making an apology on his talk page for biting.--Hazel77 talk 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saw your comment. That is cool.  We all can get a bit overzealous on spam and protective of Wikipedia, that is what xFD is for, to allow time to make sure we don't overreact.  Me, I just get long winded ;)   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 04:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Harm? None I can see. Amount of discussion is more than page. If user uses it for spam, a different matter, but that appears quite unlikely. Collect (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and use NOINDEX if people are really concerned about a spam issue. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 16 November 2008 (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.