Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ronewirl




 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Ronewirl
The entire page is promotional (in this case, of a religion). It is certainly "extensive discussion, not related to Wikipedia", and might also be regarded as "Advertising or promotion of a business, organization, or group unrelated to Wikipedia", "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" or "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy". It has been discussed on the help desk, and I have twice posted to the User talk:Ronewirl about it: the user's only response has been to ask on my talk page who was 'offended'. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although there is an accepted degree of latitude for user pages, this particular page has stepped over the line and is in violation of several policies and guidelines. It's being used as a WP:FORUM and is a violation of WP:USERPAGE, in that the page does not "...facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia." It clearly is "substantial content" that "is unrelated to Wikipedia". It's also inappropriate per WP:NOTHOST. It's not about whether the content offends, or not, it's about being appropriate to Wikipedia's purposes. Per WP:NPOV, we do not proselytize or promote any one religious viewpoint or belief system (including the lack of any) over any other, rather we present neutral, dispassionate, notable, and reliably sourced information about religions. Although I understand the user's good faith intentions to spread the good word, this advocacy just doesn't belong in Wikipedia. — Becksguy (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not spam. Not attack. Statements of credos are widely found on WP, and this page from an active editor (not a single page editor) is well within reason.  Nor does it reasonably offend users in general.  As it is a single user's page, no one could misread it as any official position of Wikipedia.  Absent a reason to delete, default to Keep.  There is no policy sttating that a iserpage must be "sourced" at all.   See also the discussions about ddeleting templates which identify a person's religion -- which are also generally allowed.  Collect (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor Becksguy said anything about whether it was referenced or not: we both referred to policies which we claim it contravenes. The content is quite different from a userbox or similar which announces a person's religion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of uderpages which you ought to seek out then. And the comment about sources was in direct response to the comment preceding it. Including a clear inference that it is not "reliably sourced."  As it is not an article, requirements for articles do not apply. As it does not bring WP into disrepute nor is it an attack on anyone, those specific bars on userspace do not apply.   As it does not violate any specifc rules about userspace, the default is Keep. Collect (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry my comment above was not clear, Collect. The second part about ""reliably sourced" was intended to refer to Wikipedia's mission in article space, not to the user page in question. — Becksguy (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is over the line. Particularly when viewed alongside the users contribution history. This is a soapbox screed, not a statement about the user. Miami33139 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - User has made edits elsewhere, it may seems spammy but in actuality it is more or less harmless. I didn't even understand what it said, so that tells you that most people aren't going to even understand this as promotional. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 00:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the page is not Wikipedia related in any way, so fails WP:USERPAGE. It does, however, pass WP:SOAP in every way possible as this is nothing more than religious diatribe..  ArcAngel (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tad soapboxy, should be toned down in favour of some introductory statements. Possibly should be moved to a subpage.  The external link should be removed as promotional.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails our userpage guidelines; specifically, it falls under WP:UP #2 (extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia), #4 (extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.), and #8 (other non-encyclopedia-related material). This user apparently has a blog already; WP:UP states, "in general, if you have material that you do not wish others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site." That's what this user should do. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2009 (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.