Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sean gorter/Fell for my trick


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. ( Radiant ) 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The various subpages of Sean gorter

 * Delete. Per WP:NOT and WP:NOT. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unlike many of the people whose userspace pages are nominated here, User:Sean_gorter seems to visit the site regularly, including today. I've left him a note that these pages have been nominated for deletion and requesting his input, which I think should be standard procedure in this kind of situation. Newyorkbrad 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure if it is standard procedure, but I do agree with Newyorkbrad that it is a point of standard courtesy. I don't fault anyone who isn't familiar with the process for not doing so, but I do try to make sure the creators of pages I propose for deletion are advised of it. My thanks to him for having caught it already. Regarding the pages themselves, they seem to me to be probably not particularaly useful, but, for all I know, they may have some usefulness for others, so I abstain from expressing an opinion at this time. Badbilltucker 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How can a script featuring repetitive "pooting" by a character called Farterboy possibly have any use to an encyclopedia project? Or, for that matter, an organization whose acronym stands for Papa Leaving his WifE's Alcoholic Son alonE?  I did not highlight any of his subpages that had anything to do with actual encyclopedic work &mdash; even the many "signature shop" pages.  But Wikipedia is not a private web host, and the user very clearly is using it as one.  This is a very easy slam dunk. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I agree with you that on the merits the proper result is speedy delete. But it's still nice to give due notice, and equally important, upon seeing this discussion the user might agree to db-author the pages and resolve the issue. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is to my eyes Patent nonsense, which is one of the general criteria for speedy deletion, but I don't know if that applies for userpages. A lot of my own userpages have qualified as incomprehensible gibberish, so I hesitate to pull the speedy trigger. I can agree to Delete, though. Badbilltucker 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. MER-C 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps this is the PIIer in me talking but, notwithstanding that the location of the discussion will be altogether irrelevant to its ultimate disposition, ought not the latter three items nominated (viz., the pd-self images) to be situated at IfD? Joe 07:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My impression is that since I'm nominating things as a thematic batch, they'd go here. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just speaking for myself, when I rec'd a similar group of pages yesterday I did the images at IfD and the userpages here. Not sure which method is more correct, though.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If for no other reason to prevent a speedy delete before Sean gorter has a chance to comment on these nominations. A peek at his contribution history suggests that he may not even know that these pages have been nominated, & he may also need a bit of time to recover from the shock when he discovers all of these pages have been nominated for deletion. On another page the nominator urged that the other party assume good faith; let's assume good faith with Sean for the time being. -- llywrch 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume that now that he has had a chance to comment on the proceedings, you have a chance to reconsider your vote if you so desire? &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your hurry over deleting these userspace pages? I'm entirely content with allowing this discussion to run for five days or more, at whch time an Admin will evaluate the arguments for & against then make a ruling. I'm a little disappointed in that Sean hasn't written more than expressing his surprise at their nomination -- but I'm clearly disappointed in that you didn't approach him first, discuss your concern over these pages, & suggest that he himself request some or all of them be deleted. I have found nothing to suggest that he isn't a reasonable person, & a civil discussion might have achieved removal of these pages without leaving any hard feelings; nominating these pages without talking to him first was like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. -- llywrch 18:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I, too, am perfectly willing to allow this discussion to run for five days or more. Nowhere in here have I indicated I am nominating these pages for speedy deletion, and indeed specifically stated I was not doing so below.  As for your disappointment in me, I suppose I will have to live with that burden. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I didn't even know that this page was started. Can you please tell me why my subpages are being criteria'd for speedy deletion?  •S  e  an•gorter•  (P) 03:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome. This is why I believe we should always notify the users whose pages are being discussed. I will let the nominator respond to your question but you might want to take a look at the policies cited in the first delete comment above. Newyorkbrad 03:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've not nominated them for speedy deletion (or they would've been gone already), Sean &mdash; just deletion. Wikipedia is for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia, and our user pages are supposed to reflect that.  Look at Wikipedia's user page policy: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia."  Wikipedia's servers are not a web host where we can put anything we like, nor is it a place where we're supposed to just congregate with our friends.  All of the above pages have absolutely nothing to do with what the Wikipedia project's purpose is.  We're not here to run signature shops, write  stories and create images about farting people, or congregate with our friends outside the purposes of putting articles together &mdash; we're here to write an encyclopedia.  That's the very long version of why these pages have been nominated for deletion. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have informed him first, though.-- SU IT  00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom and WP:NOT. None of these pages have the slightest amount of content that is either encyclopedic or used to benefit the encyclopedia. -- Kicking222 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Delete them all'. No useful purpose to the encyclopedia. --Deskana talk 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm-so-sorry-man Delete - Jeez, even I don't have that many. I'm sorry, but that many useless subpages is just wrong. Maybe one, but if that's not below the radar then even that's pushing it... I mean, what is P.L.E.A.S.E. even? I know you've spent a lot of time on them, but they are too many & too non-wikipedia to be kept. Sorry (I hate being mean...) :( Spawn Man 09:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral' leaning toward keep. I understand the WP:NOT thing, but I myself have quite a few sub-pages (namely: for user page, sandbox, templates and userboxes, etc.). &mdash;  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. This is not myspace. Eusebeus 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I have requested the redirect User:S!/P be deleted as a userpage of a nonexistant user (Sorry dude, "PLEASE" made me laugh soo hard). I'm assuming "PLEASE" is a parody of "EA" ? It looks a awful lot like it... 68.39.174.238 03:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (PS. That's my interpretation of it, I didn't read it real throughly and could easily be mistaken)
 * 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.