Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TaylorOliphant


 * 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 debate was keep. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TaylorOliphant
Violates WP:UP in a number of ways: the editor is POINTy regarding hemp (his only contribs have been to push a fringe theory that hemp was used in the bible and therefore should not be illegal), and has a few pro-hemp Youtube links on his user page (which have nothing to do with the encyclopedia), as well as a link to a site he started because he couldn't make his point on WP (advertising). On top of that, he's got a number of Biblical verses that also have nothing to do with WP. He has one paragraph about what he thinks of WP that might be of value, but not really, as it's a veiled anonymous PA. MSJapan (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We give people a bit of slack on their user page. He has made several hundred edits, although a lot are to his user and talk page. --Bduke (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bdukie flaminglawyerc 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my reasoning in the essay Editors matter. As noted, this editor is an active contributor, though he doesn't seem to have started editing the mainspace. This userpage is not unreasonable or abusive, and deleting it may well drive away a perfectly good potential Wikipedian. WaltonOne 15:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Walton One.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - MSJapan has some genuine concerns; however, people come to the project for all sorts of reasons initially and end up being productive editors. I don't think the links are abusive, though they are intended to make a point which isn't compatible with the main purpose of user space. TaylorOliphant hasn't edited for over a month, and if the user doesn't return within a reasonable space of time and start making positive contributions I think it would be fair to review the situation again.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:49, 26 March 2008 (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.