Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pasquale Camporeale


 * 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 delete. I can't comprehend the "speedy close" opinion, frankly.  Sandstein  20:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Pasquale Camporeale
User's only contribs are to this page, two years ago. WP is not a host for personal pages. If this is deleted, please nuke the photo as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - why are we trying to get rid of this page really? It is by no means a personal page.  It has his name and his photo -- if there had been contact information, his resume, vacation photos, etc, I would give it to you; it ain't in this case.  Yea he is inactive, but this user page is not really in contrivantion of any of the policy or guidelines for user pages.  Is there some drive to rid WP of inactive users and their user pages?  If it is simply to get rid of them, perhaps a WP:RfC would be a better place to start a discussion (if there is one, please point me to it) rather then a random MfD.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but there's no use in keeping it. I'm going through the 166,000+ user-created public domain photos on wiki and cleaning them out, and I check to see where they're used. This one is used only on this page. Every page we keep adds a tiny bit to maintenance tasks like the one I'm performing. It's not serving any function, and he clearly is not coming back, after two years of never contributing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The "delete" closures of five MfDs&mdash;Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Austinleal, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carlodue, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Danielpr, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carlodue (the Efrym discussion is the broadest and aggregates many of the comments offered at the other discussions, but because the pages, the arguments toward the deletion of which would and should, one imagines, have been quite similar, were listed separately, one might do best to read each of the MfDs to gain a full appreciation for the scope and nuance of the discussion)&mdash;in which the deletion of non-G11able user pages created by one-off editors was considered were recently challenged at a well-visited DRV, in which that deletion was (at least in the mind of the closer, whose early close of a discussion that tended toward "endorse" but that was fluid and showed no firm community consensus, following from a supposition that "further discussion [would be] a waste of time", cannot [or at least will not, I expect] be viewed as disposing of the issue conclusively and is almost certain to be followed by a rehashing, if not full recontesting, of the issue at some future MfD, as, for instance, this one) endorsed, such that it might now be argued that a consensus exists for the proposition that WP:NOT operates to counsel deletion for user pages like that here nominated and that the discussion of the drive to rid WP of user pages long ago created by editors who have not otherwise been involved in the project has already been had (consensus for changes to policy, which is, after all, rightly or wrongly, descriptive rather than prescriptive, may be developed at insular deletion discussions rather than at RfCs or policy talk pages, but only where those discussions are community-wide, FSVO community-wide), at least for the moment (CCC); whether that consensus does in fact exist (and, for that matter, whether such a consensus might ever be reached at a single MfD/DRV, and whether, if yes, such a consensus could be reached at a DRV that was open for 60 hours and in which a useful discussion was ongoing at the time of an inexplicable closure) is, of course, a separate question, but the fact of its existence suggests that, as you suggest, it would be useful for the community to consider the issue at RfC or Wikipedia talk:NOT toward the determination of whether there might exist some general rule for cases as this that might command the support of the community. Joe 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Not sure why the page needs to be deleted for the photo to be listed at IfD.  Seems like the most common uncontested deletions there are "unencyclopedic, absent uploader".  We aren't a web host.  IF this user comes back (and remembers their password) I don't se why they couldn't just make another page. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also noting that this user hasn't registered an email address, meaning that if the password is forgotten, there is no routine method to recover control of the account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can users who feel strongly tht such pages (user pages of contributors who have made no contributions beyond their userpage, and even there, none for more than a year) please help correct WP:UP.  We should stop going over the same ground for random examples of a huge class of usesrpages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Even if such pages are to be deleted, it would still be polite (why be rude?) to abide by the request in found at the top of this page:


 * User:
 * When a page in the User or User talk namespaces seems worthy of deletion, please explain your concerns using either a personal note or by adding " ~ " to their talk page.


 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If nominators should do this, it should be indicated on the MFD template. I just followed the instructions there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as WP:Point. The nominator did not first attempt to talk with the user about his/her concerns regarding User:Pasquale Camporeale. The nominator's reason for the nomination include "There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but there's no use in keeping it and ... he clearly is not coming back." That is not the applied standard. Standard The guideline says "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion". NOT says that a user page is part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. The nominator has not pointed to any elements on the page that would make it personal web page for self-promotion or identified anything else in WP:User that would justify listing the page at MfD. Application The page states in its entirety, "Hello, I am Pat. I live in Amsterdam. Thank you. More to come!!" and displays the free use image Image:P3280096.JPG. The page does not contain a resume or other advertising/publicizing material that is useful off Wikipedia. The page does not contain items such as an email address or encouragement that may lead others to spend their efforts outside of Wikipedia. There is nothing on this user page that violates WP:User or that will ever turn it into a personal web page for self-promotion. Comment Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. Listing a user page for deletion without first attempting to contact that user and without a reasonable basis is not a preferred means to demonstrate perceived problems with user page policy. -- Suntag  ☼  07:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to make a point--in fact, I have no idea what point I even could have been making here. Furthermore, attempting to contact a user who has essentially never made any contributions is a useless waste of time. The odds are about one in a million he is monitoring his userpage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Following the precedent of the other five MfDs (links available somewhere above). --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 20 September 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.