Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rachel Summers

 __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:  delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Rachel Summers


Does not appear to have an encyclopedic purpose. Listing innocent living persons alongside the likes of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith, and in the same format, without explanation or justification, is contrary to WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in here I made this big table as an overview and help of what articles I want to read through and sometimes edit/improve pages. I know I edit my user page a lot, but its a complex field and I also edit articles from time to time. I tried to fix/neutralize the mentioned caption. Please let me know what bothers you especially and I will try to fix it. But I need this overview for editing. My user page is an overview for getting a grab on a complex issue and contributing on articles and categories, as everyone can see in my edit history.
 * Are names/articles not allowed to be put next to other articles on a user page? Just for example: Are convicted criminals and victims and whistleblowers and names of operations not allowed to be put on a loose list? Especially when they are named in that linked articles? And who decides who are the bad guy and who are the good guys (Jimmy Savile got not convicted at lifetime if I am not wrong), isn't he supposed to be processed as "innocent" as long as he is convicted? (although most would most probably disagree regarding Savile... including me) I am just collecting articles (or names for maybe further articles) which were named in connection with incidences. For me the overview helps me to keep an overview on which articles I want to concentrate (inform myself and/or edit) in future. - Rachel Summers (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to help clarify, what you've done is create a chart, categorizing people under certain titles. These titles do not accurately describe everyone under them, which could lead people to think so-and-so was a child molester, such-and-such a government conspirator, etc., when in fact them may be victims or witness or not even involved. (As a general rule, we don't name victims or other non-notable citizens to protect their rights to privacy.) This chart may be helpful to you, but others may read it in a way that you never intended. That is what makes it a problem. To fix this you could try retitling the columns to make it clear they are for your own research, or try reformatting it. Look at other people's pages to see how they do things. Or simply move the chart to your own computer/phone, where only you can see it, if it helps you that much. But I would strongly suggest that you delete it yourself in the meantime as a show of good faith, until you can decide what to do.


 * And nobody here decides that anyone is good or bad. We just report the facts and notable opinions and let the reader make up their own mind about the very subjective "good and bad" of it all. Zaereth (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand. I will blank my userpage, save it on my computer in html-format for quick access and maybe try to find a better way on formatting/displaying the info, like you recommended. Thanks for your explanations.
 * (And my question on good and bad was obviously a rhetorical one, cause MPS1992 made that distinction between innocent and "the likes of", that's why. I should have used quotation marks though.) -- Rachel Summers (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete to remove edit history, but not salt obviously. I came to this thinking I would !vote Keep because a user should be allowed to keep track of articles they wish to create or edit, but the column headings go beyond that. The obvious insinuation is that there are conspiracies (or something like that) and the listed people are associated with them. Good to see that the user appears to understand the issues and how to solve them. Blanking the page does not go far enough though. should not take any of this to mean they are not free to edit on these topics, or to maintain "neutral" lists (as neutral as any such list could be) of articles to edit or be created. In my opinion the table would be acceptable as long as the connections are made by reliable secondary sources so maybe it would be a good idea to go the extra step and offer a ref from an RS for each entry. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete considering WP:BLP concerns, to hide the history (I agree with DIYeditor here). Generic non-suggestive lists would be acceptable, especially under a sandbox or for use with Special:RecentChanges as an alternate watchlist, rather than the main user page.  I don't really recommend starting to add reliable sources as an alternative to deletion, unless the page was also intended for mainspace (and if so, list-style articles generally have a different format and clear inclusion criteria).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:51, 23 July 2019 (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.