Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sewperman

 __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 keep in its revised form. BencherliteTalk 12:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sewperman


Only being used to memorialize a non-notable person. WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appropriate user memorial for a productive Wikipedia.  See Deceased Wikipedians.  Read the caveat at WP:NOTMEMORIAL."'Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. While using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one experienced Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification, of their death. See WP:RIP for a mostly complete list of such Wikipedians.'".  This Wikipedian contributed enough for us to allow this much recognition.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really... Deceased Wikipedians sets the threshold at a few hundred edits. Beerest 2 talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 20:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still "Keep", despite the lowness of the number of quality edits. Despite the deletions and copyright problems of the newcomer's edits, I sense a good faith editor.  As editor's matter, and we would like all prospective editors to know that if they join Wikipedia they will be welcomed as community members, we should allow some lasting recognition even for non-prolific editors.  Agree with  Beerest 2, that the newspaper style obituary isn't quite right for the purpose, I propose editing it to something more suitable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this version might be considered more appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fewer than twenty edits.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  14:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This user only edited Wikipedia for one day and made very few edit. He was also adamant on promoting himself (I had to nominate Scott Sewperman and Scott Sewperman for deletion a while back) Also while SmokeyJoe is correct that lots of deceased Wikipedians have userpages, I could find none that were flat out obituaries. When I read the NOTMEMORIAL exceprt, what I think of is a page where other Wikipedians give condolences to the user. This isn't the case. WP:FAKEARTICLE applies, no reason here to ignore the rules. Condolences to Mr. Brewster's family. Beerest 2 talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 20:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's likely that the user made more edits, but that they have been deleted, as was mentioned in an example above. The ones left are almost entirely copyvios (for example, this pair:  and ; and these:, , .  However, new users are sometime not aware that this is inappropriate.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Deceased Wikipedians' "few hundred edits" standard is for listing on that page, not whether or not we can have a small note on their userpage. There's nothing wrong here. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The new version, I find, is much more acceptable as a deceased Wikipedian's userpage. I think this should probably be kept now.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:57, 29 November 2013 (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.