Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VinnieQuine (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:VinnieQuine
It has been a shade under a month since Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:VinnieQuine. There has been no activity from the account since the 4th of Feb, and this is page is still a violation of WP:UP. &lowast; \ / (⁂) 10:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plenty of time has been given for the user in question to tweak it into an article; he obviously isn't interested in doing so. Wikipedia is not a webhost where you can store all your WP:SPAM. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated. Further Vinnie should be the recipient of a very cross look from a suitably cranky editor. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would likely have just blanked this (and waited for the month to pass), that way the info and page is available should the user return. There is not a lot of info there, but there was some "article editing" skills shown.  I guess this being the second nomination does muddy the waters a bit, but when it comes down to it, this is not appropriate use. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And what stopped you? X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, blanking a page while it is under deletion review seemed a bit of bad faith. Im comments were more in line of possible actions in future similar situations.  Regardless if I blank the page, this discussion will still be open. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Jolly decent of you. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Spam. Queenie   Talk  20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - users should have great latitude in their user space, but as Queenie said - WP:SPAM
 * Delete as spam, user was given more than sufficient latitude and time to address the problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy/Move . Why can't we move to User:VinnieQuine/TwinTails and leave a talk-page message letting him know that's where it is? There is content that could potentially become an article. That a newbie put it in teh wrong place and hasn't checked into WP for four whole weeks hardly seems like a reason to WP:BITE the newbie because he didn't know the WP:U policy. THF (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * huh? It already is in user space, and the user specifically set a time frame during which they said they would improve it. Really, it's not much of an article anyway, a complete redo would probably be the best thing for it. Also, spam is still spam, even in userspace. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When did the user "specifically set a time frame during which they would improve it"? I don't see that on User_talk:VinnieQuine, and, in any event, I agree that User:VinnieQuine violates WP:U, but it wouldn't as a subpage. THF (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But on further review, the article is not improvable, so I agree with the spam assessment. Carry on. THF (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I do believe we have ourselves a snowball. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I have already done that. The article was originally in the mainspace, and I moved it to his userpage so he could work on it. I received an email from the editor thanking me for the move and expressing his will to work on the article over the next two or three days. It has well exceeded that timeframe - he hasn't even come online, even after I informed him of its unsuitability. &lowast; \ / (⁂) 20:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete probably G11 should have been actioned at first chance. Non notable company. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Disagree that this should have been userfied without the users request or agreement.  This is a mainspace article, and (if not CSD#G11) should have been sent to AfD, where my opinion would be:  Delete lack of independent sources (looks like advertising).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2009 (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.