Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Photofm


 * 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 Delete. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Photofm
Being used to sell his photo prints; if this was an article, would be a spam deletion. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - user hasn't even touched the project since May. // roux   03:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite reasonable for a user who does photography to have links up on their userpage to point to their work, if you consider the commercial link a problem, it can be removed, but I don't see a valid reason to delete the entire page. (The user did contribute and might consider returning if we handle this carefully) - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait (weak keep) A number of editors who are photographers have links to websites and use them for "commercial purposes" - probaly well over a hundred in fact. If the user did nothing useful, I would be inclined to agree on deletion, as it is, I think "wait" is more appropriate. Collect (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I made a CSD 11 per "What to do if you find someone else's user page being used inappropriately" which says, in part, "User pages that go beyond this into advertising may be tagged for speedy deletion however: most of the speedy deletion criteria apply equally to user space as to main space." However it was denied for the reason CSD's can't be done for userpages. So it was sent here. My reason for the CSD, and for the "delete" opinion here is that the bulk of the, now deleted, images the user had uploaded were all images having a "business card" feel to them with the photographers name and contact information as part of the images. When I looked at the user page the first line that caught my eye was "To buy some prints, goto PhotoFM on DeviantArt". This alone qualifies as "blatant advertising", even if you ignore the images. As for the user being active - Yes, for two days over an almost two year period. The activity was to upload advertising and to insert it into the following articles: "Patrick Monahan" dif, "Escape the Fate" dif, "Chiodos" dif, "Scary Kids Scaring Kids" dif and "Nonpoint" dif. When you remove the "blatant advertising" you are left with "Cumulus mediocris cloud" dif which shows the user inserting two images that were not blatant advertising: Image:Calico basin red rock cumulus mediocris.jpg and Image:Cumulus mediocris clouds redrock.jpg. All things considered, outside of these two images and the one article they are included in, all edits have been forms of advertising and were made on April 25, 2007 and May 13, 2008. Based on the the "work" the user has done here, and the nature of their user page, it seems their actual user name is a violation of the Company/group names policy which states "Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove external links The whole userpage isn't spam, just the links. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Has not really edited in a while and most of his pictures have been deleted. I'm not fond of having his information plastered up there. On the plus it's better than a faux article and I'm not fond of blasting userpages. Perhaps, a courtesy blanking maybe? Yanksox (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice for recreation. Page is currently meant to advertise his photographic work. I support the deletion of his userpage; if user returns and would like to refactor/recreate his userpage in a manner fit for Wikipedia, that would be fine. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:21, 18 December 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.