Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal




 * 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. –Black Falcon (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and per the consensus reached at Deletion review/Log/2009 November 6, which overturned the closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band).

I am also nominating:

User:Septemberboy009/Tanay Bakshi, User:Septemberboy009/Shivansh Trivedi, User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), and User:Septemberboy009/Khyat Vasavada can be deleted under db-repost per Deletion review/Log/2009 November 6, so I have not included them here. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all of his userpages related to himself, Ayush Goyal, his band "BLADES", its members or anything related. Blanking was an appropriate first step to be considered, but we have now been at this for some time, and  has reposted material that he had removed as an end-run around Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band).  These pages are too promotional.  User should read and understand WP:COI before posting anything again related to his band.  Refer him to Alternative outlets.  If this user again attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion, he should be blocked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity promotional. Miami33139 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We decided years ago to stop saying that word. It is needlessly insulting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not required in userspace, nor is it required that userspace consist of articles suitable for mainspace. Remove any external links, of course. Collect (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is however WP:NOTHOST. Usually things in userspace are either aimed at working on the project (essays, tools, to do lists, test pages, etc), or are drafts aimed at eventual inclusion. If these are anything proper here, they are drafts. DES (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, I will often agree, but not this time because this user has shown that he doesn't take seriously our objections to his userspace content.  His failure to engage in these discussions also counts against him.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I have placed userspace draft on all three pages. I doubt that any of these are notable or have a significant chance in mainspace, but perhaps the user should be allowed a limited time to build them into reasonable articles if s/he can. If these were to remain, the userspace draft tag labels them as not authoritative, and removes them from google and other search engines. DES (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - although the user seems to have made a few edits outside their own userspace (over 200, in fact), I think that the user is most likely using Wikipedia as their personal web host, so taking into account the deletion review cited earlier on, delete. JulieSpaulding 02:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete some reasonable (even if slim) chance of being suitable for the mainspace should be required of user drafts. I don't think any policy requires us to keep somewhat promotional walled gardens about a non-notable band that have already been effectively debated once.  Gigs (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as self-promotional vanity. WP:NOT, etc. Glass  Cobra  04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:USER (WP:FAKEARTICLE). User subpages are not to be used to permanently circumvent mainspace deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to the matter as a whole after seeing and filing MfDs that amounted to nothing over and over-- 1 more case.of "article amnesty" in userspace that quite has to stop. With the "Secret pages" ArbCom case last spring, there seems to be a greenlight to fight back with MfD but it seems we all dropped the ball on recreating. At least this isn't this in sheer size where we're giving a green light to web and image hosting and user talk forums going back more than 5 years. Methinks an RfC could be helpful, as since things are virtually unchanged with no new policy since that ArbCom decision, they're defaulting it down to us to handle. I'll ponder it more. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think things are not so serious as to need to need an investigation. Initial MfDs would be much more successful if they were preceded by *some* attempt to talk to the user concerned.  In the few cases I remember of repeated MfDs concerning the same userspace, blocking concluded the trouble.  Recreation following a clear MfD can be considered trolling, and trolls should be blocked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just have no idea how much of this there is sitting around. I'll claim the arbcom bit has precedent and point here to short-term application and interpretation if more discussion is requested. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all per SmokeyJoe. We should not allow this user to keep using his or her userspace as a webhost. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:51, 4 February 2010 (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.