Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sophiasargeant

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Sophiasargeant

 * – added by Cunard (talk) on 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

WP:UP ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Draft of a speedy deleted page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominated at the six minute mark.   See WP:BITE.   Amazingly enough, many people write about themselves in userspace.   With ELs removed, this is not a real violation of anything.   And try writing nicely to folks, it really does help.  Collect (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - No BITE, only standard welcome and bot  templates. See: user page content - and especially what  about  all  the n-f photos that  she couldn't possibly  have taken herself -  or do  we just  assume she owns the © ? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have copyright questions, then use the approriate avenues for raising them. Suppose, moreover, that you were a new editor, and six minutes after writing something you got those exact same templates?  How might you have felt?  Bear in mind that a fraction of 1% of those in that position ever return to Wikipedia at all. (see UT:Jimbo Wales) Collect (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Protecting children's privacy and Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. I have tagged the page for speedy deletion per the standard procedure at MfD; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BeatzZ and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vsimon94 for two examples. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have declined the speedy-deletion for several reasons. First, the COPPA protections apply to minors under the age of 13.  This person self-identifies as 15.  Second, Protecting children's privacy is an essay and while it is good advice, even it does not recommend automatic deletion as a remedy.  Third, nothing cited qualifies under any of the narrowly written criteria at CSD.  Rossami (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider minors to be children. That COPPA applies to minors under the age of 13 has little relevance to why the page should be speedy deleted. Based on the content of this page, I highly doubt that is the subject of the article. That  has posted such personal content about Sophia Sargeant, a minor, qualifies the page for speedy deletion under WP:BLP. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The user page is an exact copy of the deleted main space page. See WP:FAKEARTICLE whether she is a minor or not. Wikipedia is not  MySpace. (and I  don't  need lecturing  about  the use of n-f content)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPDELETE states (my bolding): "Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard." Because this page is promotional, it is written non-neutrally and summary deletion is appropriate. WP:BLPTALK states (my bolding): "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here." Cunard (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Minors engaged in public activities (such as acting) are not remotely the problem.   If I recall correctly, Wikipedia does cover children who are active in any profession.     What does ArbCom say? Reasonable measures which forestall the drama associated with interactions between naive children, predatory pedophiles, and sting operations by law enforcement are appropriate.  does not appear to relate here.    Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate. does not appear to affect minors who are engaged in a profession from making statements reasonably related to their professional background.  The page contains (other than DoB) essentially no such information as would be remotely a problem on Wikipedia.  Justin Bieber has a lot more personal info, to be sure.   What we are left with is -- everyone's userpage is likely to be "self-promotional" making that weak.  By the way, Wikipedia user pages have a very large number of "actor"s born after 1992.    Collect (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: In declining the speedy-deletion, I am explicitly not arguing that the content should be kept.  I, too, am concerned by the probability that this content violates Wikipedia's policies on advertising.  The page, however, does not qualify for speedy-deletion.  BLP was written with explicitly negative information in mind.  To claim that a page qualifies under BLP because it says good things about a person is incompatible with the conversations and debates that led up to that policy.  The "non-neutral" language was added to remove ambiguity about pages that were less than overt but still harmful to the subject, not to allow the summary deletion of positive content.  I find nothing on the page that crosses even that low line.  Rossami (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hosting promotional biographical content from a non-notable minor can be harmful to that minor. It is unclear whether is the subject and whether there is inaccurate content on this page. Without reliable sources, it is unknown, so I maintain that speedy deletion is still warranted. We will have to agree to disagree and let this page be deleted after 7 days. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Harmful", which is a judgment call, is not a speedy deletion criterion, unless it meets WP:CSD#G10. Note the unambiguous statement at the top of that policy page: "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below.".  If you want to expand speedy deletion criteria (you say it is "warranted"), it should be done via discussion at WT:CSD (note the new criteria proposal guidelines at the top of that page).  Overeager CSDs, administrative shortcuts, in the name of sensitivity, tend to be counterproductive, as they lead to another week of wider discussion at DRV.  Even if this page is terribly harmful, immediate deletion achieves little over a standard process deletion debate optionally with the page blanked, as we have many mirrors and cached versions that last a week or more.  I do not think this page does any harm to its subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do know that the page is an unsourced, promotional piece that can cause harm to the subject if the page was created without her and her parents' consent or if there are any untrue statements. You are incorrect in saying that pages should not be speedy deleted for being harmful. WP:BLP states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (bolding preserved from text; italics added for emphasis). That CSD does not allow speedy deletion does not matter when BLP does. Had this been speedy deleted, it would not have been brought to DRV. If it were, it would have been brought only by someone with extremely poor judgment. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP doesn't authorise speedy deletion, but if you think it should, say so at WP:CSD. I believe that BLP encourages removal of unsuitable material by normal editing, and this if this would be insufficient, you should go straight to Requests for oversight, as tagging a problem serves to draw attention to it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk)
 * Comment: Had this been speedy-deleted out of process, it would have been eligible for summary restoration by any admin discovering that the CSD criteria had been invalidly applied.  If you want to expand the WP:BLP scope to include this kind of material (and it explicitly does not today despite your quotes out of context), then you need to make that proposal on the CSD talk page.  Rossami (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Sophiasargeant and User:Sophiasargeant/Sophia Sargeant will be eligible for deletion in fewer than 24 hours, so I am thankful that these unsourced BLP-violating pages about a minor will not remain here for long. Cunard (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotion by a non-contributor. Agree that it is not speediable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same for the identical page, User:Sophiasargeant/Sophia Sargeant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How many edits is a person likely to make in their first week on Wikipedia?   I suggest "non-contributor" may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy, like 99+% of all new contributors who are faced with an instant deletion as their first contact on WP. Collect (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to that view, having held it long, but no longer. The problem is that the page is promotion.  While some allowance and courtesy is made for active Wikipedians who may do something isolated that is accused of promotion, in the case of SPAs who only ever contributed the one line of promotion, I have never seen them rehabilitate.  Perhaps I am wrong, but it is not through lack of trying.  I do still say that it is better, more efficient, less unkind when we are mistaken, to blank such problematic pages on discovery in the first instance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's addition of User:Sophiasargeant/Sophia Sargeant to the nomination. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Cunard and SmokeyJoe. -- Klein zach  00:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both per Cunard. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. MER-C 06:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-- per Cunard and SmokeyJoe. -- E♴  (talk)  13:52, 19 April 2011 (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.