Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raghava kashyap

 __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 userpage and Remove non-talk content from talk page. Deb's points are legitimate, but since the user hasn't edited since 2012, and his only edits are to his userpage, I doubt leaving it up would've had much of a positive impact. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Raghava kashyap


WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * CSD as self-promotion Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. On this occasion I'd have to say it's borderline. Were it an article, I'd speedy delete it for non-notability, not for advertising. Deb (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The user page is formatted like a Wikipedia article. The editor has only ever editted the user page.  Per User pages, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. As an article, this is clearly NN; as a user page, I don't think it is quite promotional enough for a G11 speedy. However, even for an established contributor it would be on the FAKEARTICLE side, and this guy has been here for nearly three years and has no contributions but this. Wikipedia is not Facebook, and is not here to host his profile. JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I recognise that, but FAKEARTICLE wouldn't be grounds for speedy deletion so it's debatable whether it should just be cleaned up. Deb (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you've just tagged the user page, with the summary, "add template - would this resolve the issue?"
 * I'd have to say no. We have policies against using user pages as self-promotional spam. We do not have an exclusion that says such spam is OK, provided it's also labelled "This is spam". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But I don't agree that it's spam. If I did, I would have speedy deleted it by now.Deb (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (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.