Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vctm64/Keira boys high




 * 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. harej 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Vctm64/Keira boys high
Totally unrelated to Wikipedia.. WP:NOTWEBHOST. There's not a clear guideline on wp:userpage related to this, but I think it's pretty safe to say that Wikipedia should not be a place to put up an allegation like this.

Tried explaining to user and asking politely to remove information, does not seem to understand.. See User_talk:Vctm64  Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We can't cover previously unpublished material about sexual abuse allegations. Wikipedia is not a platform for disseminating new information. See WP:Alternative outlets for guidance on getting your information published. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no imperative to delete this explanation of the user's interest and motivation.  However, the user needs to understand that an encyclopedia is not the place to record first-hand advocacy of an issue, no matter what the issue.  Advise the user to step back form his immediate personal experience, and consider reading and improving existing articles on the subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This material is potentially libelous and definitely damages the reputation of this institution if taken seriously. Isn't that an imperative? Gigs (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I think no. He doesn't name names.  He's talking about 50 years ago, and it is now well recognised that these things happened, a lot.  The institution should be able to wear anonymous allegations.  I'm inclined to thing the allegations are true.  They are not unusual.  I don't think they reflect on the current staff, management or students.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Scuse me? Round here, the allegation of past misdeeds (even 50 years ago) can be enough to eventually close the institution.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How many schools do you still have open? Kaldari (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is getting away the basic debate of whether or not this belongs on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if we think it's true, it doesn't matter what this could possibly cause, it doesn't matter if it is "unusual"... the question is does content like this belong here. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: wikipedia is neither a WEBHOST nor a SOAPBOX --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that this new user is going to continue to try to improve the encyclopedia. If he continues, this subpage, and the userpage, give a basic background to understanding the user.  If his next edits are constructive, the page should be allowed.  If he shows he is only here to soapbox, incompatibly with WP:5P, then we'll have to delete to make our position clear.  If he is now to be inactive, Redirect the subpage to the userpage, and keep the more mild userpage.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both Not related to the project. Miami33139 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 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.