Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sir Terence Barry CCTKC OS AC

 __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. RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Sir Terence Barry CCTKC OS AC

 * – (View MfD)

Faux article, autobiography Doug Weller  talk 10:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - the user page is being used for bizarre self-promotion and autobiography. The editor in question has made almost no contribution to the project, and those he has made have similarly been self-promoting of his own questionable styles and titles. Serves no useful purpose.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT 11:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It appears that this page was not properly tagged as nominated for deletion. I have tagged it.  User:Doug Weller - Did your tools have a glitch?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks. I presume Twinkle failed for some reason. Doug Weller  talk 13:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am not sure what this is supposed to be, but it is not a proper user page and needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. I am not sure what this is, but it looks enough like a draft that the default reaction is not to delete it.  The characteristic newbie mistake of registering a username the same as the intended topic title has been made.  Probably, move to a subpage, talk to the user, suggest an account rename.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at possible sources, I find this Facebook page and this. There's also a Linkedin page for a Sir Terence M. Purcell-Barry CCtKC AC. I'm not convinced there's been a mistake. I am convinced that we can't source the page and that it's not a proper userpage and can never be an article. Do you think it can be an article? Doug Weller  talk 13:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was confused about what the page is about, and looking closer, it is confusing. It is not inherently needing to be deleted from userspace, but certain things need to be done to stop it looking like a NOTWEBHOST page. It is not on a path to being an article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with the comment by User:SmokeyJoe about a newbie error. When anything can possibly go wrong, it will.  That is Murphy's Law.  When a group has ensured that something cannot possibly go wrong, it will go wrong anyway.  That is a corollary.  The instructions are clear enough that there is no possible way that an article name and a user name can be confused, but new editors do it anyway, and think that their purpose for coming to Wikipedia is to create one article and maintain it, and that their username is the same as the article.  It can't go wrong, so it goes wrong anyway.  But the page in question is crud, and can go to a crud can.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom; seems pretty close to WP:U5 territory (no proper use of a user page and few other edits). Britishfinance (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2019 (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.